J".  z6/o3 


Srom  i^t  fcifitarj^  of 

gptofeBBor  TTiffiam  J^^^^K  <Breen 

QBequeat^eb  61?  ^im  to 
t^e  feiBrnt)?  of 

Qprinceton  C^eofogicdf  ^eminarg 


COMMENTARY 


ON 


ECCLESIASTES. 


MOSES    STUART, 

LATELY    PROFESSOR   OF   SACRED    LITERATURE    IN   THE    THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY    AT    ANDOVER,    5IASS. 


NEW  YORK : 

GEORGE    P.    PU  T  N  AM, 

18  5  1. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1851, 

By   Moses   Stuart, 

in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


andover:  jonx  d.flagg, 

STEREOTTPKB  AND  PRINTER. 


PREFACE 


The  book  of  Ecclcsiastcs  presents  many  apparent  problems,  which  have 
long  been  the  sulijcct  of  wonder  and  dispute,  among  the  Jewish  Eabbics  as 
well  as  in  the  Christian  church.  Had  not  the  evidence  been  strong  and  deci- 
sive of  its  rightful  place  in  the  Canon  of  the  Hebrew  sacred  writings,  it  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  rejected  long  ago  T)y  many,  as  not  being  a  book  of 
divine  authority.  Not  a  few  passages  seem  to  speak,  at  first  vicAv,  the  lan- 
guage of  skc])ticism,  i.  c.  of  unbelief  or  doubt  as  to  a  future  state,  and  also 
of  devotedness  to  sensual  enjoyment.  It  was  on  this  ground,  that  some 
of  the  Jewish  Rabbies,  at  the  time  when  the  Talmud  was  written,  made  an 
effort,  as  it  would  seem,  to  eject  it  from  the  sacred  Canon,  as  we  arc  told  in 
the  Talmnd,  Tract.  Shabb.  fol.  30,  col.  2.  Some  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
have  intimated  the  like  feelings,  as  existing  among  some  Christians  in  their 
times  ;  and  since  the  revival  of  criticism  in  its  late,  and  specially  in  its  most 
recent  form,  the  book  has  been  treated  as  indeed  a  clever  performance  of  the 
kind,  but  after  all  as  the  work  of  a  sl-eptical Epicurean.  Even  De  Wctte,  with 
his  sober  aspect  and  seeming  impartiality,  does  not  hesitate  to  bestow  such 
an  epithet  on  the  author  of  the  book.  No  wonder  that  he  has  had  many  imi- 
tators or  followers  in  Germany. 

The  evidence  that  Ecclesiastes  was  a  portion  of  the  sacred  Canon  sanc- 
tioned by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  is  plain,  and  as  certain  as  anything  so 
remotely  historical  can  be  made  out  to  be.  This  is  sliown  in  its  proper  jdace, 
in  thclntrod'iction  to  the  Commentary.  This  admitted,  it  follows,  that  a 
serious  obligation  devolves  on  us  to  read  the  book,  and  at  least  to  do  what 
we  can  to  understand  it.  Thousands  of  sermons  have  been  preached  on 
portions  of  the  book,  and  a  multitude  of  Commentaries  have  been  written, 
most  of  Avhich  arc  merely  ethical  and  hortatory.  There  is  indeed  no  want  of 
material  in  the  book,  for  a  basis  to  such  sermons  and  homilctic  commentary. 


tl  PREFACE. 

I  have  done  what  I  could  to  develop  the  plan  of  the  book,  and  the  execu- 
tion of  this  plan  by  the  writer,  more  suo.  This  has  cost  me  more  laborious 
study,  than  all  the  philological  remarks.  Others  must  judge  whether  my 
labor  has  been  bestowed  in  vain. 

The  Hebrew  student  —  the  aspirant  to  sacred  knowledge  —  has  been  in  my 
eye  throughout.  I  have  endeavored  to  leave  not  a  single  grammatical  diffi- 
culty, either  as  to  i\\Q  forms  of  words  or  the  syntax,  untouched.  In  every  case 
of  difficulty,  or  where  such  student  might  be  in  doubt,  as  to  the  principles 
admitted,  I  have  referred  him  to  the  Grammar  and  the  Lexicon,  with  indica- 
tions of  the  places  where  he  will  find  illustration  or  confirmation  of  that 
concerning  which  he  doubts.  I  would  hope  that  the  book,  now  made  easily 
accessible  to  learners  unless  I  very  much  misjudge,  may  hereafter  constitute 
a  part  of  the  course  of  Hebrew  study.  It  is  well  deserving  of  it.  The  idiom 
is  so  unlike  most  other  Hebrew,  in  certain  respects,  that  a  knowledge  of  it 
must  give  any  one  a  much  freer  scope  in  the  language.  The  Hebrew  in  it- 
self is  rather  easy  than  otherwise  ;  for  great  simplicity,  generally,  reigns  in 
the  structure  of  sentences.  Seldom  need  the  student  be  left  in  doubt  as  to  a 
satisfactory  meaning,  when  all  investigation  is  conducted  on  principles 
purely  philological.  Any  other  method  of  conducting  it,  is  in  the  main  useless. 

In  the  earlier  part  of  my  professional  labors  here,  I  undertook  to  lecture  on 
Ecclesiastes.  But  at  that  time  I  could  not  satisfy  myself,  for  I  could  not 
then  obtain  cither  competent  or  satisfactory  aid.  I  therefore  soon  abandoned 
the  attempt,  telling  my  pupils,  as  my  reason  for  so  doing,  that  I  could  not  lec- 
ture on  a  book  which  I  felt  that  I  did  not  understand.  Lately,  I  have  resumed 
and  repeated  the  study  of  it,  after  more  widely  extended  and  protracted  disci- 
pline in  Hebrew.  Difficulties  have  now  seemed  to  vanish  apace.  I  no  longer 
continue  to  doubt,  except  as  to  some  individual  expressions ;  and  even  in 
regard  to  these,  I  have  at  last  succeeded  in  satisfying  myself.  When  we 
attain  to  such  a  state  of  feeling,  it  natui-ally  inspires  a  hope,  that  we  may  do 
something  to  help  or  to  satisfy  others.  1  would  fain  hope,  that  not  a  few  of 
the  apparent  enigmas  of  the  book  will  be  made  to  disappear,  or  else  meet  with 
a  solution,  in  the  following  pages.  Many  a  mind  has  been,  and  is  still,  per- 
plexed with  these.  If  I  can  afford  any  aid  to  anxious  and  candid  seekers 
after  the  meaning  of  the  author,  I  shall  regard  it  as  a  high  reward. 

M.  STUAKT. 
Andover:  Theological  Semhiary,  1851. 


INTRODUCTION 


§  1.   General  Nature  of  the  Book. 

Ix  many  respects  the  book  o^  Ecclesiastes  lias  no  parallel  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  It  is  the  only  book,  among  all  the  sacred 
writings,  which  undertakes  the  task  of  philosophizing.  But  this 
word,  as  api)lied  to  Ecclesiastes,  must  not  be  understood  in  the 
Grecian  or  Roman  sense,  nor  even  in  that  of  modern  European 
nations.  Ontological  speculations  are  utterly  foreign  to  Coheleth. 
That  he  was  in  some  degree  versed  in  them,  might  not  be  im- 
probable, provided  we  should  concede  to  him  the  latest  period  in 
which  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  were  composed.  Grecian 
philosophy  made  a  conspicuous  figure,  after  the  time  of  Socrates 
and  Plato ;  so  that  all  the  nations  around  the  Mediterranean, 
who  had  any  acquaintance  with  the  Greek  language,  would  be 
likely,  through  the  medium  of  their  learned  men,  to  have  some 
knowledge  of  it,  or  at  least  some  information  in  respect  to  it.  A 
mind  so  strongly  bent  on  in(iuiry  as  that  of  the  author  of  the  book 
before  us,  could  hardly  have  failed  to  know  something  of  it,  in 
ease  he  lived  as  late  as  the  time  of  Malachi,  when  Plato  was  win- 
ning renown  among  all  who  visited  Attica,  and  specially  among 
all  who  frequented  tiie  groves  of  Academus.  It  is  quite  certain 
that  the  Jeivs  of  Alexandria,  at  a  subsequent  period,  busied  them- 
selves much  with  the  works  of  Plato  ;  for  Philo  Judaeus  was  so 
engrossed  by  the  later  Platonism,  that  it  has  been  said  of  liim,  as 
exhibited  in  his  works,  that  ''  it  is  difficult  to  tell  whether  Philo 
plaiomzes,  or  Plato  philonizesJ"  Fr<jm  Kyyptian  Jews,  or  other 
Jews  living  in  Grecian  cities,  some  knowledge  of  Grecian  philoso- 
phy might  have  been  attained  by  Coheleth  ;  and  we  might  almost 
venture  to  say  (taking  his  inquisitive  spirit  into  view)  would 
have  been  attained,  had  he  lived  at  a  period  sufficiently  late.   But 


8  §  1.    GENERAL    NATURE 

of  any  sucli  knowledge  tliere  is  not  the  least  trace  in  the  book 
before  us.  In  my  own  apprehension,  this  fact  seems  to  favor  two 
positions  in  regard  to  the  book  :  (1)  That  the  author  was  not  an 
Egyptian  Jew  of  a  very  late  period  ;  for  in  this  case  he  could 
hardly  have  avoided  some  reference  in  his  work  to  the  learning  of 
that  age  (i.  e.  the  age  of  the  first  two  Ptolemies,  323 — 246  b.  c), 
and  also  to  the  country.  (2)  That  he  lived  at  a  period  before  the 
Jews  in  Palestine  became  acquainted,  in  any  good  measure,  with 
the  Greek  language  or  philosophy,  i.  e.  before  the  period  when  the 
chieftains  of  Alexander's  divided  empire  established  themselves, 
in  all  the  countries  around  the  eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean. 
These  considerations  make  against  the  position,  that  Ecclesiastes 
was  composed  long  after  the  time  of  Malachi,  and  more  still  against 
the  supposition  that  it  was  written  after  the  Persian  rule  in  Pales- 
tine had  ceased. 

But  however  all  this  may  be,  this  fact  is  plain  and  certain,  viz. 
that  Coheleth  exhibits  no  acquaintance  with  Grecian  philosophy. 
He  is,  through  and  through,  a  Palestine- Hebrew,  and  most  probably 
an  inhabitant  either  of  Jerusalem,  or  of  its  near  neighborhood. 
The  manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  frequenting  religious  worship 
(4 :  17—5  :  1  seq.),  shows  that  he  speaks  of  it  in  a  way  which 
would  be  familiar  to  those  who  frequented  the  temple-service. 

We  have  then  a  work  before  us,  not  of  ontological  and  meta- 
physical speculation,  but  a  work  of  practical  philosophy.  All  the 
reasonings  are  built  on  the  results  of  experience ;  and  all  the  pre- 
cepts which  accompany  them,  are  such  as  have  regard,  not  to 
mere  abstract  truth,  but  to  wary,  considerate,  and  sober  demeanor. 
The  book  begins  and  ends  with  one  and  the  same  theme  ;  and 
this  theme  itself  is  the  result  of  observation  and  experience. 

The  general  truth,  however,  which  constitutes  this  theme,  is 
easily  divisible  into  many  particulars  ;  and  these  require  illustra- 
tion and  confirmation.  It  was  the  effort  to  accomplish  this  object, 
which  gave  rise  to  the  apparently  variegated  and  subordinate 
parts  of  the  work.  The  general  subject  is  turned  round  and  round ; 
and  as  often  as  a  new  aspect  presents  itself,  the  writer  stops  to 
describe,  to  make  comments,  to  show  what  objections  can  be  made 
to  such  a  view,  and  what  can  be  said  to  confirm  and  establish  it. 
Nor  is  it  the  general  theme  only  which  is  thus  turned  round  in 
order  to  get  a  view  of  its  different  aspects,  but  the  minor  particu- 


OF    THE   BOOK.  9 

lars,  in  their  turn,  are  often  detalt  with  in  the  same  way  ;  so  that 
the  mere  cursory  reader  is  apt  to  cherish  the  apprehension,  that 
Coheleth  is  full  of  repetitions.  A  more  tliorou<^h  examination, 
liowever,  by  the  aid  of  competent  critical  and  philological  knowl- 
edge, will  show  him,  that  what  he  regards  as  mere  repetitions  of 
the  same  thing,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  presentation  of 
the  same  subject  in  different  attitudes  and  in  different  relations. 
Whatever  there  is,  whi(;h  strictly  speaking  is  really  repeated,  is 
some  general  result,  some  ultimate  truth  —  as  it  were  the  focus, 
toward  which  all  the  seemingly  divergent  rays,  when  traced  back^ 
will  be  founcfto  converge.  But  it  needs  much  and  attentive  study 
of  the  book  to  attain  to  a  full  perception  of  this.  Yet  when  such 
study  is  thoroughly  pursued,  and  in  the  right  track,  nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  this  book,  apparently  a  book  of  miscellanieSy 
assumes  the  form  of  a  general  unity ;  and  while  all  its  subordinate 
parts  are  intei'woven  by  fine  threads,  that  escape  the  notice  of  the 
more  cursory  observer,  these  are  the  very  things  which  attract 
and  highly  excite  the  attention  of  inquiring  and  discerning  minds. 
But  of  this,  more  will  be  said  in  the  sequel. 

As  a  specimen  of  ancient  philosophy,  the  oldest  and  the  only 
one  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  which  has  come  down  to  us, 
Ecclesiastes  would  seem  to  deserve  the  notice  and  attention  of 
modern  philosophers,  and  specially  of  those  who  undertake  to- 
write  the  history  of  ancient  philosophy.  Have  the  Hebrews  — 
the  only  nation  on  earth,  before  the  Christian  era,  who  had  en- 
lightened views  of  God  and  of  duty  —  have  they  no  claim  to  be 
heard  on  the  subject  of  practical  moral  philosophy  ?  If  the  book 
of  Coheleth  were  a  Chinese  production,  or  Mantchou-Tartar,  or 
Japanese,  the  literati  of  Germany  and  France,  if  not  of  England^ 
would  break  through  all  the  barriers  thrown  in  their  way  by 
remoteness  of  time  and  strangeness  of  language,  and  with  glowino- 
zeal  bring  before  the  world  the  important  results  of  their  pro- 
tracted and  laborious  examination  of  this  book.  Every  year  now 
bears  witness  to  some  feat  of  this  kind,  which  attracts  notice  and 
confers  celebrity.  But  Coheleth  —  alas  !  who  are  the  philosophers 
that  are  investigating  his  work  ?  Neology  has  indeed  furnished 
some  philologists,  who  have  bestowed  on  this  work,  quite  recently, 
much  and  attentive  study,  and  some  of  it  to  quite  an  important 
pur])ose.     But  even  liere,  the  chief  attraction  seems  to  be  the 


10  §  2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN  AND 

alleged  skepticism  of  the  writer.  These  facts  'indicate,  that  there 
is  something  very  attractive  to  them,  in  the  hope  of  finding  the 
ancient  Hebrews  to  have  been  destitute  of  any  belief  in  a  future 
state.  And  as  not  a  few  things  are  said  in  Ecclesiastes,  which 
appear  at  firet  view  to  support  such  an  allegation  in  respect  to 
Hebrew  opinion,  the  book  has  lately  become  a  subject,  not  unfre- 
quently,  of  discussion  and  interpretation.  But  beyond  this  class 
of  persons,  the  matter  of  critical  interjiretation  sleeps  in  the  same 
quiet  nook,  where  it  laid  itself  down  more  than  a  thousand  years 
ago. 

After  all,  however,  it  is  a  just  subject  of  reproof  to  the  historians 
of  philosophy^  that  a  specimen  of  it  from  a  writer  of  the  most  truly 
enlightened  and  religious  nation  of  all  antiquity,  should  have 
attracted  no  more  of  their  attention  and  regard.  But  it  is  easier 
to  follow  in  the,  footsteps  of  the  thousands,  who  have  written  upon 
Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Plotinus,  than  it  is  to  become  a  sufficient 
master  of  the  Hebrew  to  make  a  radical  investigation  of  the  book 
before  us.  It  is  quite  plain  that  the  attractions  of  speculative, 
metaphysical,  and  ontological  philosophy  are  far  greater,  in  the 
view  of  most  philosophical  inquirers,  than  anything  which  a  prac- 
tical and  ethical  philosophy  can  present.  The  sayings  of  the 
earliest  Greek  sages,  in  respect  to  the  nature  of  things  or  of  men, 
rouse  up  more  curiosity  and  excite  more  interest,  than  any  phi- 
losopher's sayings  among  the  Ilebrews,  because  the  Greek  nation 
elevated  the  literary  standard  of  the  world,  while  the  Hebrews 
remained  without  any  Schools  of  Philosophy,  or  any  considerable 
cultivation  of  the  arts  and  sciences.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  after 
the  literary  race  shall  come  to  a  pause,  for  want  of  farther  ground 
to  move  upon,  that  the  moral  and  practical  philosophy  of  the 
Hebrews  will  begin  to  attract  more  attention. 


§  2.  Special  Design  and  Method  of  the  Booh. 

I  couple  these  together,  because  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  separate  them  without  incurring  the  danger  of  frequent  repe- 
tition. 

The  general  nature  of  the  book,  as  being  of  the  ethico-philo' 
sophical  cast,  has  already  been  described.  We  come,  next  in  order^ 
to  the  theme,  or  themes,  which  are  discussed. 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  11 

The  great  and  appropriate  theme  of  the  whole  book,  is  the 

VANITY  AND  NOTHINGNESS  OF  ALL  EARTHLY  EFFORTS,  PUR- 
SUITS, AND  oiiJECTS.  With  this  the  book  commences,  and 
employs  an  intensity  of  expression  in  stating  it,  that  cjin  hardly 
be  exceeded  ;  Vanity  of  vanities  —  vanity  of  vanities^  all  is  vanity. 
The  repetition  of  the  word  vanity  in  the  plur.  Gen.  that  follows 
in  the  first  case,  then  the  repetition  of  the  whole  of  the  same 
phrase,  and  lastly  the  universality  or  extent  of  the  proposition  (^</// 
is  vanity),  conspire  to  render  the  expression  of  the  main  theme 
the  most  intense  of  which  language  is  capable.  Thus  commences 
the  book  before  us  ;  and  after  passing  in  review  a  multitude  of 
particular  things  which  belong  to  this  general  category,  the  dis- 
cussional  part  of  the  book  ends  with  the  same  declaration  :  vanity 

OF    VANITIES;    ALL    IS    VANITY  !     12:    8. 

All  the  intermediate  jwrtions  of  the  book  bear  a  more  or  less 
intimate  connection  with  this  main  theme.  Not  less  than  some 
twenty-three  times  is  the  general  proposition  repeated,  in  the 
same  or  in  equivalent  words,  at  the  close  of  different  illustrations 
and  discussions.*  Like  a  net  of  fine  threads,  this  great  theme  of 
vanity  pervades  or  spreads  over  the  whole  work.  A  minute  and 
close  examination  will  enable  any  one  to  see,  that  the  main  thread 
of  discoiu^se  is  never  lost  sight  of,  however  the  writer  may  seem  to 
make  temporary  excursions.  He  always  returns,  as  true  as  the 
needle  to  the  pole,  to  the  same  stand-point  from  which  he  started ; 
for  to  this,  after  all  his  short  excursions  for  the  sake  of  discovery 
and  examination,  he  designs  to  come  back.  His  "  right  hand 
would  as  soon  forget  its  cunning,"  as  he  would  forsake,  or  even 
lose  sight  of,  the  main  object  that  he  has  in  view. 

This  is  a  trait  of  the  book  before  us,  for  which  it  has  in  past 
times  obtained  but  little  credit.  It  is  only  a  few  years,  since 
some  who  have  directed  their  studies  to  Coheleth,  have  discovered 
and  fully  announced  this.  But  now,  since  this  has  been  once  seen 
and  fairly  confirmed,  it  hardly  seems  probable  that  it  will  here- 
after be  forgotten. 

But  wl  en  thus  much  is  said  for  the  unity  of  the  book,  it  must 
not  be  too  rigidly  interpreted.  It  is  true,  that  there  are  subordi- 
nate themes  in  the  book,  which  do  not  very  directly,  but  only  more 

*  E.  jr.  !••  14.17.  2:  1,  U,  15,  17.  10,  21,  23,  2G.  3:  19.  4:  4,  8.  16.  5:9. 
6:  2,  9,  11.  7:6.  8:  10,14.  11:8,  10. 


12  §  2.    SPECIAL   DESIGN  AND 

remotely,  contribute  to  the  confirmation  of  the  main  theme.  The 
author  of  the  book  before  us  is  far  enough  from  being  a  dull  proser. 
Life  and  animation  reign  throughout.  He  has,  indeed,  nothing  of 
the  technical  and  formal  method  of  the  Schoolmen  and  mere 
logicians ;  for  his  book  is  anything  rather  than  an  enumeration 
of  particulars  in  regular  logical  sequency.  He  comes  upon  us 
unexpectedly  at  times,  with  a  theme  apparently  incongruous  and 
irrelativ  e,  and  we  feel  for  the  moment  that  we  are  thrown  off  from 
our  track.  But  he  soon  shows  us,  that  for  a  short  time  only  he  is 
moving  in  a  direction  diverse  from  the  main  line  ;  for  after  this 
we  find  him  to  be  again  converging  toward  it.  This  occasions  a 
striking  variety  in  his  particulars,  and  avoids  the  dulness  of  a  slow 
and  uniform  movement.  He  casts  a  look  at  everything,  in  passing; 
and  sometimes  he  stops  a  moment,  in  order  to  take  observation 
of  a  new  occurrence  or  a  new  object,  and  then  resumes  his  course. 
Hence  it  comes,  that  many  a  reader,  who  does  not  thoroughly 
investigate  and  understand  his  plan,  is  disposed  to  complain  of  his 
apparently  discursive  and  miscellaneous  method  of  composition. 
A  closer  examination  will  bring  him  to  see,  that  the  author  has  not 
forgotten  what  he  set  out  to  do  ;  nor  has  he  turned  aside  from  it, 
except  in  cases  where  additional  interest  could  be  given  to  the 
whole,  by  special  notice  of  some  particular  and  interesting  objects, 
which  claim  attention  because  they  are  near  to  the  way  where  he 
is  passing. 

The  number  of  things  which  he  specifically  presents  to  our  view 
as  vanities,  is  not  indeed  very  great.  But  he  evidently  designs, 
that  those  which  he  presents  should  be  regarded  as  specimens  of 
all  the  rest,  which  are  of  a  kindred  nature  and  are  not  mentioned. 
This  is  apparent  from  the  declaration  at  the  beginning  and  end  of 
the  book,  viz.  that  all  is  vanity.  But  those  objects  which  are 
presented,  are  seldom  dismissed  without  showing  them  in  their 
various  aspects  and  relations.  For  example ;  avarice,  or  the 
greedy  pursuit  of  gain,  is  repeatedly  brought  to  view.  First,  we 
have  it  illustrated  in  the  experiments  which  Coheleth  made  in  his 
kingly  state,  in  order  to  find  some  stable  and  enduring  good,  2 : 
7,  8.  The  heaping  up  of  treasures  in  its  highest  extent,  he  found 
to  be  vanity.  It  would  not  —  it  could  not  —  confer  the  happiness 
desired.  Then,  again,  we  are  presented  with  some  of  the  positive 
evils  which  attend  greediness  for  gain,  2:  18 — 23.     After  much 


METHOD    OF    THE   BOOK.  13 

toil  and  vexation,  a  man  must  leave  all  which  he  has  acquired 
to  some  one  wlio  never  contributed  in  the  least  to  acquire  it. 
He  next  brings  to  view  severe  and  dexterous  toil  for  riches, 
which  attracts  the  envy  of  others  around  the  successful  man,  4:  4. 
He  then  presents  a  solitary  man,  without  child  or  brotlier,  labor- 
ing ceaselessly  to  acquire  that  which  he  can  bestow  on  no  one 
whom  he  cares  for,  or  who  cares  for  him,  4  :  8.  The  evils  of  such 
a  state  of  seclusion  and  lonely  toil,  he  illustrates  by  several  pro- 
verbial apothegms,  4:  9 — 12.  After  this,  he  presents  a  case,  in 
which  there  is  excessive  toil  to  provide  for  children,  and  yet  all  is 
lost  by  casualty,  or  misfortune,  or  mismanagement,  5:  13 — 17. 
Another  view  of  the  subject  is,  the  case  wliere  riches  fall  into  the 
hands  of  strangers,  instead  of  being  inherited  by  children,  G  :  2. 
It  is  easy,  with  a  little  attention,  to  see  that  each  of  these  develop- 
ments is  attended  with  its  own  peculiarities  and  grievances,  while 
all,  when  traced  back,  are  found  to  be  united  in  one  central  point, 
viz.  the  utter  insufficiency  of  riches  to  procure  solid  and  lasting 
happiness. 

Several  subjects  are  dealt  wnth  in  like  manner.  Hence  it  is 
easy  to  perceive,  how  the  feeling  arises  in  the  cursory  reader,, 
that  the  writer  is  repetitious,  and  often  resorts  to  the  same  topic,, 
as  if  he  was  in  want  of  something  new  to  say.  Closer  examina- 
tion removes  this  illusion.  He  has,  indeed,  repeatedly  brought 
several  topics  before  us  ;  but  he  places  them,  each  time,  in  a 
different  attitude  and  in  new  relations  ;  and  it  soon  becomes  evi- 
dent, that  he  has  insisted  on  them  so  frequently,  only  because  of 
their  relative  importance  to  his  main  object. 

But  there  is  one  source  of  evil  to  man,  which  seems  to  bear 
upon  his  mind  with  more  galling,  if  not  heavier,  weight  than  any 
other.  This  is  that  of  oppression  by  kings  and  civil  rulers.  If 
there  be  any  one  thing  which  urges  him,  beyond  all  the  rest,  to  be 
dissatisfied  with,  or  to  doubt,  the  doctrine  that  wickedness  speedily 
brings  punishment  after  it,  it  is  the  permission  and  toleration  of 
oppressive  and  wicked  rulers.  The  first  glance  he  takes  of  the 
subject,  is  directed  toward  the  bench  of  jvstice,  or  at  least  toward 
the  place  where  justice  is  looked  for,  and  with  right  expected. 
There,  on  that  tribunal,  he  finds  wickedness  to  be  seated,  and 
iniquity  to  take  the  place  of  righteousness,  3 :  16.  At  the  sight, 
liis  first  emotion,  called  forth  by  pious  feelings,  bids  him  to  hope 
2 


14  §  2.    SPECIAL   DESIGN   AND 

that  God  will  bring  them  to  judgment,  3:17.    But  still  farther  con- 
templation of  the  spectacle  makes  him  almost  to  despair  of  the 
destinies  of  man,  and  to  feel  that  Heaven  designs  men  to  know 
that  they  are  little  if  any  better  than  the  beasts,  3:18 — 21.  During 
the  moment  of  excitement  thus  produced,  he  seems  in  fact  to  feel, 
that  men  cannot  consider  themselves  as  any   better  than  the 
perishable  creatures  around  them.    In  the  midst  of  this,  however, 
he  essays  to  comfort  himself  with  the  thought,  that  man,  although 
perishable,  can  after  all  have  some  enjoyment  at  least  in  the  fruit 
of  his  labors.     But  then  a  renewed  look  at  the  effects  of  op- 
pression, at  "  the  tears  of  the  oppressed  who  had  no  comforter," 
and  the  consideration  that  "  on  the  side  of  the  oppressors  was 
power,"     bring  him  again  to  a  state  of  despair,  even  so  as  to 
count  death  more  desirable  than  life,  and  to  wish  that  he  had 
never  been  born,  4 :  1 — 3.     Grievous  indeed  must  have  been  the 
oppression  under  which  he  groaned,  when  it  forced  from  him  such 
outbursts  of  feeling  as  these.     After  descanting  on  the  vanity  of  a 
greedy  desire  for  riches,  (and  with  this  the  oppression  of  rulers 
in  their  exactions  naturally  connects  itself),  his  mind  again  recurs 
to  the  ruler  of  his  land,  of  whom  he  speaks  in  terms  of  great 
severity :  "Better  is  a  poor  and  a  wise  child,  than  an  old  and  fool- 
ish king,  who  will  no  more  be  admonished,"   4  :  13.      He  next 
brings  the  subject  of  religious  duties  into  view,  and  seems  to  re- 
turn from  the  consideration  of  these,  with  his  excitement  some- 
what abated,  and  in  a  state  of  more  calm  reflection.     He  says, 
that  if  one  "  sees  the  oppression  of  the  poor  and  the  violent  per- 
verting of  judgment  and  justice,"  he  must  repress  his  wonder  by 
the  reflection,  that  there  is  One  higher  than  the  highest  earthly 
magistrate,  who  will  take  cognizance  of  the  matter,  5:8.    In  the 
sequel,  he  touches  again  on  the  subject,  and  seems  to  set  forth 
more  fully  the  bitter  consequences  of  oppression,  by  declaring 
that  "it  renders  those  madmen  who  practise  it,  and  that  bribes 
destroy  their  understanding,"  7  :  7.    But  here  he  intermingles,  in 
his  discourse,  a  caution  against  being  hastily  provoked  by  op- 
pression, and  says  that  it  is  not  wise  to  keep  up  the  comparison 
of  present  oppressive  times  with  former  and  better  days,  as  no 
good  will  come  from  it,  7 :  8 — 10.    In  the  sequel,  he  again  brings 
to  view  the  then  lamentable  civil  and  social  state  of  things.     He 
sees  "  the  just  perishing  by  his  righteousness,  and  the  wicked 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  15 

prolonging  his  days  by  wickedness,"  7:15.  That  is,  the  one  falls  a 
victim  to  the  anger  or  the  avarice  of  the  ruler,  and  the  other  buys 
himself  off  from  the  retributions  of  justice  when  it  threatens  to 
overtake  him.  Yet  even  here,  he  prudently  cautions  against 
believing  every  report  that  is  whispered  about  respecting  rulers, 
7:21,  22.  He  well  knew,  that  such  matters  are  wont  to  be  exag- 
gerated. But  caution  of  this  nature,  as  he  thinks,  may  be  carried 
too  far.  To  illustrate  this,  he  introduces  one  counselHng  to  yield 
universal  and  implicit  obedience  to  the  ruler,  and  this  as  the  only 
means  of  safety,  because  the  power  is  in  his  hands  and  he  can 
punish  at  pleasure,  8  :  2 — 4.  But  to  this  he  answers,  that  such 
undistinguishing  obedience,  rendered  through  selfish  fear  of  conse- 
quences, must  lead  one  to  do  that  which  is  evil ;  and  that  it  is  bet- 
ter to  call  to  mind,  that  there  is  a  time  when  all  the  actions  of  men 
will  be  judged,  and  both  the  wicked  ruler,  and  his  obedient  sub- 
ject, who  was  willing  to  do  wrong  at  his  bidding,  will  be  tried 
and  rewarded,  because  that  none  can  escape  the  dread  season  of 
reckoning,  8  :  5 — 8.  He  sees,  indeed,  that  one  rules  over  an- 
other to  his  great  injury  ;  but  in  looking  farther  on,  he  sees  the 
wicked  carried  out  from  the  city  to  the  tomb,  and  anticipates  that 
the  memory  of  him  Avill  soon  perish,  8 :  9,  10.  The  passionate 
and  overbearing  demeanor  of  rulers  is  next  alluded  to  (10:  4), 
and  caution  given  against  manifesting  offence  at  it  in  their 
presence.  That  arbitrary  power,  Avhich  sets  folly  on  the  seat  of 
dignity,  which  puts  servants  upon  horses  and  makes  princes  to 
walk  on  foot  as  their  waiters,  is  next  brought  under  view,  10 : 
5 — 7.  By  various  proverbial  sayings,  he  illustrates  the  impor- 
tance of  a  wise  and  discreet  demeanor,  on  occasions  when  such 
things  are  presented  to  view  ;  specially  does  he  recommend  dis- 
cretion in  regard  to  what  one  sai/s  on  such  occasions,  for  his  words, 
if  they  be  severe,  may  be  fatal  in  their  consequences,  10:  12 — 14. 
Still,  his  own  heart  is  deeply  grieved  at  the  evil ;  and  he  breaks 
out  into  the  pathetic  exclamation  :  "  Woe  to  thee,  O  land,  when 
thy  king  is  a  child,  and  thy  princes  feast  in  the  morning!"  10: 
16,  i.  e.  y  hen  thy  king  is  incapable  of  governing  with  discretion, 
and  thy  princes  are  luxurious  and  profligate.  It  would  seem, 
that  the  old  and  foolish  king,  mentioned  in  4:  13,  as  then  reigning 
when  that  passage  was  written,  had  now  deceased,  and  had  been 
succeeded  by  a  mere  child,  who  was  reigning. when  the  passage 


16  §  2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN   AND 

now  before  us  was  written.  Matters,  as  it  appears,  had  grown  no 
better  —  the  king  was  now  an  imbecile,  the  nobles  profligate. 
In  fact,  the  whole  of  chap.  x.  is  occupied  with  the  subject  of  bad 
and  incompetent  rulers,  who  are  represented  (vs.  18, 19)  as  sloth- 
ful, and  as  being  gluttons  and  drunkards.  This  is  the  last  ex- 
pression of  his  views  and  feelings  in  regard  to  this  "  sore  evil ;" 
:and  here,  although  his  heart  is  beating  high  with  scorn  and  indig- 
nation, he  still  protests  against  "  cursing  the  king,"  even  in  the 
most  retired  and  secret  places,  for  in  some  way  unexpected,  that 
king  may  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  curses  uttered,  and  this 
will  bring  additional  evil  upon  the  malcontent. 

This  now,  with  the  preceding  case  of  avarice,  may  serve  fully 
to  illustrate  my  remarks  on  the  alleged  discursive  method  of  Cohe- 
ieth,  and  the  repetitions  which  are  charged  upon  him.  Here, 
half  a  score  of  times  and  more,  the  subject  of  civil  oppression  and 
wicked  rulers  is  brought  to  view.  Yet  among  all  these,  no  two 
■of  the  representations  are  alike.  Every  time  the  thing  is  men- 
tioned, it  is  placed  in  some  new  light,  and  something  is  added  to 
the  strength  of  the  impression  already  made  by  the  writer.  This 
then  can  hardly  be  deemed  mere  repetition.  On  the  contrary, 
since  the  subject  is  not  presented  as  a  whole  at  any  one  time  and 
place,  it  behooved  the  writer,  when  he  laid  the  matter  so  much  to 
heart,  to  fill  out  the  entire  picture.  That  he  has  gradually  done 
this,  instead  of  doing  it  all  at  once,  does  not  prove  that  he  is 
justly  liable  to  the  charge  of  mere  repetition. 

The  examples  now  produced  will  illustrate  the  method  of  Cohe- 
leth  sufficiently  for  our  present  purpose.  We  may  deduce  from 
them  conclusions,  in  regard  to  the  method  in  which  some  other 
topics,  particularly  that  of  wisdo7n,  are  treated  in  this  book.  In 
one  sense,  the  composition  is  fragmentary,  i.  e.  different  portions 
or  attitudes  of  a  subject  are  introduced  here  and  there  with  vari- 
ous interruj^tions,  and  never  continuously  so  as  to  exhaust  the 
subject  in  any  one  passage.  In  another  sense,  it  is  far  from  being 
fragmentary.  It  is  no  compound  of  scraps,  one  here  and  another 
there,  just  as  the  writer  might  happen  to  light  u^on  them,  or  to 
<levise  them.  It  is  far  remote  from  being  a  mere  Collectanenm, 
lika  Robert  Southey's  memorandum-book,  or  like  the  great  mass 
of  scrap-books.  The  seeming  fragments  here  are,  after  all,  only 
portions   or  particulars  of  one  great  whole,  and  more  or  less  re- 


METHOD    OF    THE   BOOK.  17 

motely  stand  related  to  it,  or  have  a  bearing  upon  it.  Those  wlio 
have  not  thoroughly  examined  the  book  will  be  slow,  perluips, 
to  believe  this.  Before  they  get  through  the  Commentary  that 
follows,  however,  I  would  fain  hope  that  they  will  be  ready  to 
admit  it. 

It  is  obvious  from  what  has  been  brought  to  view  respecting 
oppressive  rulers  above,  that  some  of  the  language  must  have 
been  dictated  hy  feeling  and  suffering,  rather  than  by  mere  calm 
reflection.  Of  course,  this  opens  the  door  for  inquiring  when  and 
where  the  writer  lived,  in  order  that  he  should  be  under  such  kings 
and  princes  as  are  here  mentioned  ;  and  moreover,  when  and  where 
such  extreme  misrule,  disorder,  and  injustice  prevailed  in  Judea. 
A  time  very  different  from  that  which  the  Bible  assigns  to  Solo- 
mon, and  his  peaceful  and  happy  reign,  must  of  necessity  be 
supposed.     But  of  this,  more  in  the  sequel. 

No  impression  is  more  common,  than  that  Coheleth  is  like  to 
the  book  of  Proverbs,  in  its  manner  and  method  ;  and  yet  this  is 
far,  very  far,  from  the  truth.  Even  De  Wette  says,  that  "  this 
book  attaches  itself,  in  every  respect,  to  the  gnomological  and 
didactic  poetry  of  the  Hebrews,"  Einl.  §  282.  Instead  of  saying 
(with  him)  in  every  respect,  I  should  be  nearer  the  truth  if  I  said  : 
In  no  respect.  This,  indeed,  would  be  going  too  far ;  but  let  us 
examine  and  see  how  much  is,  or  is  not,  true.  As  to  poetry,  if 
parallelism  be  a  necessary  ingredient  of  this,  then  there  is  little 
or  none  of  it  here.  In  a  few  solitary  cases,  where  apothegms  are 
quoted,  and  applied  to  the  subject  in  hand,  we  find  the  usual  form 
of  Hebrew  proverbs,  i.  e.  parallelism.  But  they  belong,  not  to  the 
writer  of  the  book,  but  to  the  maxims  which  he  quotes.  In  one 
description,  viz.  that  of  old  age,  in  chap,  xii,  the  writer  does  indeed 
border  very  closely  on  Hebrew  poetry  ;  or  rather,  it  is  altogether 
poetry  in  the  spirit  of  the  composition,  and  it  is  nearly  so  in  the 
form  of  the  sentences.  But  this  comprises  only  seven  verses,  12  : 
1 — 7.  Elsewhere  there  is,  now  and  then,  a  kind  of  couplet,  in 
which  contrast  is  presented,  or  some  special  analogy ;  and  this  of 
course  assumes  nearly  the  form  of  poetry  in  respect  to  parallelism. 
But  so  it  would  do,  in  a  writing  merely  prosaic.  With  these 
exceptions,  all  is  prose,  mere  prose,  without  any  attempt  to  soar 
on  the  wings  of  the  Muse. 

That  the  book  is  didactic^  I  freely  admiL     But  this  does  not 

2* 


18  §  2.     SPECIAL    DESIGN   AND 

necessarily  make  it  poetic.  Some  of  the  later  prophets  are  didac- 
tic ;  the  evangelists  are  didactic ;  Paul  is  didactic ;  but  none  of 
these  writers  are  poets. 

In  regard  to  the  gnomological  cast  of  the  book,  there  is  some 
foundation  for  asserting  this  ;  and  yet  very  much  less  than  De 
Wette  seems  to  suppose.  Gnomes  are  sententiae,  proverbs,  maxims, 
apothegms,  i.  e.  short  and  pithy  sayings.  The  book  of  Proverbs, 
for  example,  is  made  up  of  these,  from  chap.  x.  on  to  the  end  of 
the  book.  The  distinguishing  trait  of  them  all  is,  that  they  are 
isolated,  and  are  without  any  unity  or  bond  of  alliance,  excepting 
that  all  are  of  a  proverbial  nature.  Rarely  can  more  than  two 
verses  be  found,  where  the  same  subject  is  continued  ;  generally 
it  is  dispatched  in  one  verse,  which  for  the  most  part  consists  of 
parallelism,  and  therefore  takes  the  form  of  poetry.  How  dif- 
ferent is  the  case  in  Coheleth  !  Here  an  under-current  never  fails. 
The  whole  is  pervaded  by  that  solemn  and  monitory  truth :  All 
IS  VANITY.  Discursive,  in  a  measure,  are  some  of  the  remarks 
that  are  made  ;  yet  seldom  do  they  go  beyond  quite  narrow 
bounds.  But  what  all-pervading  unity  is  there  in  the  book  of 
Proverbs?  Certainly  none.  Nearly  every  verse  is  unlike  its 
nearest  neighbor.  But  in  Coheleth,  we  find  little,  I  might  say 
nothing,  of  this  sort.  There  are,  indeed,  apothegms  there.  But 
they  are  pearls  strung  upon  one  and  the  same  string.  When  they 
assume  a  poetic  form  (parallelism),  they  are  evidently  quotations 
of  the  writer,  and  not  matters  of  his  own  device.  The  book  of 
Proverbs  shows  us,  what  was  the  form  usually  given  to  gnomes 
or  sententious  sayings  among  the  Hebrews.  In  like  manner  the 
Arabians  arrange  their  very  numerous  proverbs.  Of  the  same 
form  are  those  in  Coheleth. 

In  illustration  of  what  has  just  been  said  respecting  the  object 
of  introducing  apothegms,  I  would  refer  to  chap.  10:8 — 11. 
Here  are  four  verses  in  succession," which  at  first  view  seem  to  be 
not  only  independent  of  each  other,  but  also  of  the  context. 
They  run  thus :  — 

(8)  He  who  diggeth  a  ditch  may  M\  into  it;  he  who  brcakcth  down  a  wall, 
a  serpent  may  bite  him.  (9)  He  who  plueketh  up  stones  may  be  annoyed  by 
them  ;  he  who  cleaveth  Avood  will  be  endangered  thereby.  (10)  If  one  lias 
dulled  the  iron,  and  there  is  no  edge,  he  swings  it  so  that  he  may  increase  the 
force;  an  advantage  is  the  dexterous  use  of  wisdom.  (11)  If  the  serpent  bite 
without  enchantment,  then  is  there  no  advantage  to  him  that  hath  a  tongue. 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  19 

Now  what  says  the  context  ?  It  says  that  a  little  folly  is  ruin- 
ous to  wisdom  ;  that  wisdom  or  sagacity  will  be  dexterous  in  the 
application  of  proper  means  to  guard  against  evil.  It  adduces  as 
a  signal  example  of  folly,  the  conduct  of  kings  who  put  high  per- 
sonages in  low  places,  and  low  personages  in  high  places.  All  this 
and  the  like,  as  the  writer  means  to  intimate,  wisdom  would  teach 
a  considerate  man  to  avoid.  Still  farther  to  illustrate  the  princi- 
ple in  question,  he  quotes  the  various  apothegms  above  exhibited, 
in  which  it  is  shown  that,  even  in  the  most  common  atftiirs  of  life, 
the  want  of  wise  precaution  will  occasion  mischief  They  all  dif- 
fer, indeed,  specifically  from  each  other,  but  all  have  a  unity  of 
object  in  view.  This  object  is  developed  in  the  final  clause  of  v.  10, 
which  declares,  that  '■'•the  dexterous  use  of  wisdom  is  an  advantaged 
This  is  doubtless  intended  as  a  key  to  the  whole  of  the  seemingly 
unconnected  passage  that  contains  the  apothegms,  which  sounds 
as  if  one  were  reading  merely  in  a  book  of  proverbs.  Yet  even 
V.  11,  at  the  close  of  the  apothegms,  is  clearly  of  the  same  tenor 
as  the  rest.  The  meaning  plainly  is,  that  he  who  has  a  tongue 
that  can  enchant,  should  be  wise  enough  to  employ  it  to  purpose, 
at  a  time  when  he  is  in  danger  from  serpents ;  otherwise  his 
tongue  of  enchantment  is  of  no  use  to  him,  because  he  lacks  wis- 
dom to  know  when  to  use  it.  After  all  this,  the  author  goes  on 
to  show  how  often  and  how  easily  the  words  of  a  fool  injure  him, 
for  want  of  discretion  or  wisdom. 

In  all  this,  now,  the  most  prominent  of  all  the  apothegmatic 
passages  in  Coheleth,  there  is  not  a  single  instance  in  which  the 
proverb  is  quoted  for  its  own  sake,  but  merely  because  it  can  be 
made  to  illustrate  the  mischief  that  a  want  of  wisdom  or  discretion 
will  occasion.  What  the  writer  would  show  is,  that,  even  in  the 
most  common  concerns  and  transactions  of  life,  discretion  and  fore- 
sight are  needed,  in  order  to  avoid  danger,  and  to  make  under- 
takings successful. 

Let  us  now  adduce  another  example,  that  will  show  the  man- 
ner in  which  a  single  apothegm  is  quoted,  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  illustrating  a  sentiment  of  the  text.  In  7  : 1,  the  cliapter  begins 
with  the  declaration  :  "A  good  name  is  better  than  i)recious  oint- 
ment." But  why  say  this  ?  The  writer  had  been  saying  nothing 
about  the  desirableness  or  importance  of  a  good  name.  The  senti- 
ment in  itself  seems  wholly  foreign  to  his  purpose.     It  is  so,  in 


20  §2.    SPECIAL   DESIGN   AND 

fact,  as  it  regards  what  he  has  already  said,  but  not  so  in  regard 
to  what  he  is  going  to  say ;  for  he  immediately  subjoins  to  the 
declaration  :  "  The  day  of  death  [is  better]  than  the  day  of  one's 
birth."  The  two  parts  of  the  verse  are  members  of  a  comparison. 
What  is  meant,  is  simply  this :  "  The  day  of  one's  death  is  as 
much  better  than  that  of  his  birth,  as  a  good  name  is  better  than 
precious  ointment."  Yet  between  the  members  of  this  comparison, 
there  is  no  particle  of  similitude  inserted  (e.  g.  S  as,  or  "j^  better 
than).  But  here  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  peculiar  idiom  of  the 
Hebrew.  In  scores  of  cases,  perhaps  even  in  the  greater  number, 
where  comparison  is  made,  there  is  no  other  particle  employed 
but  1.  ,  which,  in  such  cases,  should  be  rendered  and  so.  Our 
translators  seem  to  have  been  in  a  great  measure  unacquainted 
with  this  peculiar  idiom  of  the  language  ;  and  consequently,  they 
have  often  given  an  appearance  of  incongruity  to  expressions  in 
English,  where  mere  comparison  is  aimed  at  in  the  Hebrew. 
Almost  everywhere,  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  have  they  seemed 
to  overlook  this  distinctive  idiom,  in  regard  to  the  particle  in 
question.  The  Hebrews  said :  "  Such  a  thing  is  so  or  so ;  and 
such  another  thing  is  so  or  so,"  when  the  meaning  is  simply  :  "^s 
such  a  thing  is,  so  is  such  another  thing."  How  many  apparent 
difficulties  of  the  sacred  text  would  be  easily  solved,  by  a  correct 
view  of  this  principle,  the  attentive  and  critical  reader  may  easily 
discern.  In  the  case  above,  it  is  no  part  of  the  writer's  object  to 
teach  us  simply  that  fame  is  better  than  perfumed  oil ;  for  although 
it  is  true,  yet  by  itself  it  is  not  apposite  here,  and  in  itself  it  would 
hardly  need  inspiration  to  teach  it,  nor  would  it  add  much  to  the 
didactics  of  the  book.  But  this  common  and  well-known  proverb 
is  cited  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  a  much  graver  sentiment, 
to  which  all  readers  would  not  so  readily  accede.  When  this 
purpose  is  answered,  the  design  of  quoting  the  proverb  is  fully 
accomplished. 

Again ;  in  chap.  10 :  1,  we  have  a  declaration,  that  seems  more 
remote  still  from  the  context,  and  which  almost  startles  one,  at 
first,  by  its  apparent  incongruity.  It  runs  thus  :  "  Dead  flies 
make  the  ointment  of  the  apothecary  to  stink  —  to  ferment ;  a 
little  folly  is  more  weighty  than  wisdom,  and  also  than  what  is 
costly."  Plainly,  the  first  clause  is  not  cited  for  the  sake  of  dis- 
closing the  physical  fact  or  truth  in  question ;  for  this  was  of 


METHOD    OF   THE    BOOK.  21 

small  moment,  and  wholly  foreign  to  the  writer's  object.  But  this 
acknowledged  pliysical  truth  is  adduced  because  it  affords  a 
striking  ground  of  comparison.  Tlie  plain  sentiment  of  the  whole 
is:  ^^  As  dead  flies  (those  little  insignificant  animals)  will  corrupt 
and  destroy  the  most  precious  ointment,  so  a  little  of  folly  will  mar 
all  the  plans  of  wisdom,  and  })revent  any  advantage  from  them." 
The  sequel  brings  to  view  many  cases,  where  the  want  of  wisdom, 
or  rather  a  little  of  positive  folly,  ruins  undertakings  of  many 
different  kinds. 

The  examples  produced  are  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose. 
They  are  a  fait  specimen  of  all  the  proverbs  contained  in  Cohe- 
leth.  But  how  can  we  affirm,  with  Ue  Wette,  that,  on  the  ground 
of  such  apothegms  (which  after  all  are  not  very  numerous),  we 
must  m  every  respect  class  this  book  (Ecclesiastes)  with  the  gno- 
mohgical  writings  of  the  Hebrews  ?  When  Solomon  writes 
proverbs,  or  selects  them,  he  does  so  for  their  own  sake,  i.  e.  be- 
cause of  the  instruction  which  they  are  designed  to  convey  of  and 
in  themselves.  But  this  Coheleth  never  does.  The  primary 
meaning  of  them  is  not  what  he  designs  to  inculcate,  but,  taking 
this  as  a  conceded  truth,  he  builds  on  it  a  comparison  or  illustra- 
tion. The  primary  meaning,  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  is  the  main, 
and  usually  the  sole  meaning. 

Had  De  Wette  said  merely,  that  the  style  of  Coheleth  in  many 
respects  resembles  that  of  the  gnomological  books  of  the  Hebrews, 
he  would  have  said  what  is  evident  on  the  very  first  o})ening  of 
the  book.     Everywhere  this  presents  itself.     For  example  :  — 

(Clinp.  7:4.)  The  heart  of  the  wise  is  in  tlic  liousc  of  moiu-ninp,  but  the 
heart  of  the  fool  is  in  llie  house  of  mirth.  (5)  It  is  better  to  liear  the  rebuke 
of  tlic  Avise,  than  for  a  man  to  hear  the  song  of  fools.  (7)  Surely  oppression 
maketh  mad  a  wise  man,  and  a  gift  dcstroyeth  the  heart.  (8)  Bettor  is  the 
end  of  a  thing,  than  the  beginning  thereof;  the  patient  in  spirit  is  1  otter  than 
the  proud  in  spirit.  (9)  Be  not  hasty  in  thy  spirit  to  be  angry,  for  anger 
rcsteth  in  the  bosom  of  fools. 

(Chap.  10: 13.)  The  beginning  of  the  words  of  his  [the  fooFs]  mouth  is 
folly,  and  the  ending  of  his  mouth  is  grievous  madness.  (14)  The  fool  multi- 
plieth  words,  when  no  man  can  know  what  shall  be;  for  what  shall  be  after 
him,  who  can  tell  ?  (Chap.  11:  1.)  Cast  thy  broad  upon  the  waters,  for  after 
many  d:iys  thou  shall  lind  it.  (2)  Make  a  portion  into  seven,  and  even  into 
eight,  for  thou  knowcst  not  tlie  evil  which  shall  be  on  earth.  (4)  He  Avho 
watcheth  the  wind  will  not  sow,  and  he  who  observeth  the  clouds  will  not 
reap.     (7)  Truly  the  light  h  sweet,  and  a  pleasant  thing  it  is  for  the  eyes  to 


22  §  2.    SPECIAL  DESIGN   AND 

behold  the  light  of  the  sun.  (9)  Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth,  and  let 
thine  heart  cheer  thee  in  the  days  of  thine  early  life ;  and  ^valk  thou  in  the  way 
of  thy  desire,  and  by  the  sight  of  thine  eyes.  (10)  Put  away  vexation  from 
thy  heart,  and  remove  evil  from  thy  flesh. 

These  are  striking  specimens  of  the  sententious.  But  these 
might  be  increased  by  many  more,  from  almost  all  parts  of  the 
book.  Their  first  appearance  is  that  of  mere  gnomes.  A  closer 
examination,  however,  shows  that  beneath  them  all  there  is  an 
under-current.  They  all  refer  to  some  position  which  is  designed 
to  be  illustrated  or  confirmed  ;  and  this  it  is,  which  constitutes  the 
difference  between  such  passages  here  and  in  the  b4>ok  of  Proverbs. 
In  the  latter,  there  is  no  under-current.  The  obvious  and  simple 
meaning  is  the  principal,  and  in  most  cases  the  sole,  object  aimed 
at.  In  Ecclesiastes,  the  obvious  meaning  is  altogether  a  subordi- 
nate one. 

It  should  be  remembered,  in  a  critique  on  the  style  of  Cohe- 
leth  or  his  method  of  writing,  that  the  book  is  not  one  of  narra- 
tion or  history.  The  only  part  which  approaches  narration  is  a 
portion  of  chap,  ii,  which  relates  Coheleth's  experience.  But 
even  here,  the  style  approaches  the  sententious.  The  rest  is 
philosophizing.  Not  a  treatise  on  moral  philosophy ;  not  a  digest 
of  practical  and  ethical  science,  orderly  and  consecutively  laid 
down ;  nor  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  a  mere  mass  of  miscellany. 
There  is  Siplan  —  an  evident  plan  or  design  —  running  through  the 
M^iole.  But  one  must  not  look  for  a  chapter  of  Dr.  Paley's  moral 
philosophy  here,  or  of  Reinhardt's  science  of  ethics.  The  Aristo- 
telian logic  was  never  in  fashion  among  the  Hebrews,  and  proba- 
bly would  not  have  been,  had  he  lived  five  hundred  years  earlier 
than  he  did.  Successive  syllogisms,  in  which  the  result  of  one  is 
made  the  basis  of  the  next,  and  so  on,  in  logical  succession  and 
continuity,  is  a  thing  not  to  be  found  formally  in  the  Hebrew 
writings.  Even  the  discourses  of  Christ  himself  do  not  exhibit  it ; 
and  Paul,  the  greatest  logician  of  all  the  sacred  writers,  has 
nothing  that  even  approaches  the  school-logic.  Even  the  epistles 
to  the  Romans,  Galatians,  and  Hebrews,  (the  nearest  approach 
to  Grecian  and  modern  logic),  are  widely  discrepant  from  it,  in 
respect  to  manner.  Nothing  can  be  more  diverse  from  such 
methods  of  argument  as  Paley,  Locke,  Bentley,  and  Whewell 
employ,  than  the  whole  mass  of  the  Hebrew  writings,  earlier 


METHOD    OF    THE   BOOK.  23 

and  later.  The  Hebrews  address  the  understanding  and  the  heart 
directly  with  the  declarations  of  truth,  and  never  rely  on  any 
syllogistic  concatenations  of  reasoning.  And  what  all  others  do, 
Coheleth  does.  He  brings  one  matter  and  another  before  us ; 
says  something  important  and  to  be  remembered  concerning  it ; 
and  then  passes  on  to  other  kindred  subjects.  When  occasion 
prompts,  he  calls  up  again  the  same  subject,  and  says  something 
else  about  it,  equally  to  be  remembered.  And  it  is  thus  that  Cohe- 
leth moralizes  and  philosophizes,  through  his  whole  book. 

It  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  book  —  a  book  of  practical 
ethical  philosophy  —  that  there  must  be,  in  some  respects,  a  dic- 
tion peculiar  to  itself;  I  mean,  that  language  adapted  to  pJiilosophy 
must  be  employed.  Hence  many  words  in  the  book,  which  are 
not  elsewhere  found  in  the  Hebrew.  To  this  account,  I  can  hardly 
doubt,  not  a  few  of  the  words  may  be  put,  which  are  classed  by 
Knobel  and  others  among  the  later  or  the  latest  Hebrew.  We 
shall  see,  on  another  occasion,  that  there  are  serious  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  a  part  of  this  classification,  inasmuch  as  the  Phenician 
monuments  exhibit  many  such  words,  which  must  of  course  have 
belonged  to  the  older  Hebrew. 

I  have  stated,  at  the  beginning  of  this  section,  the  great  and 
leading  design  of  the  book  before  us.  Tfte  vanity  and  utter  insuf- 
Jiciency  of  all  earthly  pursuits  and  objects  to  confer  solid  and  lasting 
happiness,  is  the  theme  with  which  the  book  begins,  and  ends ; 
and  which,  as  we  have  seen,  spreads  as  a  network  over  all  its 
intermediate  and  subordinate  parts.  But  there  are  other  objects 
also  in  view,  besides  the  illustration  and  confirmation  of  this  great 
proposition.  The  writer  not  only  presents  us  with  the  pictures  of 
many  of  the  trials  and  disappointments  of  life,  but  also  instructs 
his  readers  how  to  demean  themselves  when  these  occur.  Doubtless 
this  is  second  only  to  the  main  object  of  the  work.  It  would  have 
been  of  little  avail  to  convince  men,  in  what  a  vain  and  perisliing 
world  they  live,  (for  their  own  experience  and  observation  would 
teach  them  this)  ;  he  felt  it  incumbent  on  him  to  tell  them  also 
what  they  should  do,  when  placed  in  this  danger  or  that,  in  this 
trial  and  state  of  suffering  or  in  that,  amid  these  disappointments 
and  those.  Salutary  in  a  high  degree  are  many  of  his  precepts. 
They  are  instinct  with  life,  and  clothed  with  energy  of  language  ; 
and   springing,  as  they  usually  do,  from  the   occasion  of  the 


24  §  2.    SPECIAL   DESIGN  AND 

moment,  are  destitute  of  all  the  formality,  the  stiffness,  and  the 
tameness  of  a  string  of  ordinary  moral  and  practical  precepts. 
It  is  the  form  of  these,  which  has  given  occasion,  in  part,  to  the 
charge  which  De  Wette  makes  upon  the  book,  viz.  that  of  "being 
in  all  respects  like  the  gnomological  and  didactic  books  of  the 
Hebrews."  Didactic  it  surely  is,  when  practical  precept  is  given 
in  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  we  ought  to  act.  But  beyond 
this,  the  gnomic  character  does  not  extend,  excepting  as  already 
stated  above,  and  excepting  also  the  brief,  the  animated,  and  the 
compressed  form  of  the  precepts. 

That  the  writer  was  a  nice  observer  of  human  life  and  actions, 
as  well  as  of  the  nature  and  course  of  things,  no  one  will  deny. 
That  he  had  moral  and  practical  ends  in  view,  subservient  to 
sober,  cautious,  and  prudent  demeanor ;  that  he  was  penetrated 
with  the  deepest  reverence  for  God,  and  inculcates  the  most 
unqualified  confidence  in  him  and  submission  to  him,  lies  in  open 
day  and  on  the  very  face  of  his  work.  That  he  was  no  Epicurean, 
no  Fatalist  (in  the  heathen  sense),  and  on  the  great  points  of 
morality  and  of  religion  no  skeptic,  will  appear  quite  clear,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  to  every  attentive  and  candid  reader.  The  nu- 
merous charges  preferred  against  him  in  these  respects,  are  the 
result  of  hasty  and  incomplete,  or  else  one-sided  views  of  his 
book.  The  Commentary  will,  as  I  hope  and  trust,  dissipate  most 
of  these  illusions. 

That  a  great  variety  of  precept  —  moral,  prudential,  and  religious 
—  should  be  the  result  of  his  plan,  is  evident.  Instead  of  embodying 
in  one  series  the  directions  which  he  gives,  as  results  of  his  vari- 
ous investigations  and  reflection,  (which  is  what  most  writers  of 
our  day  would  do),  he  everywhere  intermingles  his  advice  or 
commands  with  the  occasions  that  prompted  them.  Whatever  may 
be  said  of  his  transgressing  logical  method  by  writing  thus,  it  will 
be  conceded,  by  every  discerning  reader,  that  he  has  taken  the  best 
method  to  produce  the  strongest  and  most  lasting  impression  on 
the  mind.  Many  a  maxim  will  be  remembered  from  the  spirited 
manner  in  which  it  is  announced,  and  many  a  reader  will  be  kept 
wide  awake  with  his  vivacity  and  energy,  who  would  nod  over 
formally  correct,  but  dull  and  tame  pages. 

I  am  well  aware  that  there  are  many  and  discrepant  023inions 
which  have  been  brought  forward,  respecting  the  nature  and  de- 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  25 

sign  of  Coheletli.  ^Nlost  of  the  later  German  writers  charge  him 
with  shepticisin  and  with  unhelief  in  a  future  state  of  existence. 
Even  Umbreit,  from  whom  we  should  exi)ect  sometliing  different, 
has  w^ritten  a  volume,  which  is  entitled  Coheletli  Skepticus  de 
summo  bono.  But  De  Wette  has  far  outstripped  him.'  He  says  : 
"  The  doctrine  of  retribution^  which  constitutes  the  religious  ele- 
ment of  tlie  book,  has  many  strong  doubts  to  contend  with,  and 
these  his  own  experience  of  misfortunes  heli)ed  to  supply.  .  .  . 
The  more  unhappy  the  times  were,  and  the  more  they  led  to  de- 
spair, the  more  also  that  belief  and  animation  grew  cold,  the 
stronger  did  those  doubts  become  ;  so  that  they  finally  shaped 
themselves  into  the  ordinary  system  of  Epicureanism  joined  with 
Fatalism.     This  the  author  of  the  book  professes,"    §  282. 

To  this  statement  I  cannot  in  any  measure  accede.  That  Cohe- 
letli has  often  raised  and  expressed  doubts  respecting  retribution 
and  a  future  state,  I  readily  concede.  It  is  impossible  to  read 
with  candor  such  passages  as  3  :  18 — 21.  9  :  2 — G,  and  even  G: 
2 — 8.  9  :  11,  12,  without  feeling  that  they  are  effusions  of  a  mind 
disturbed  by  difficulties  and  doubts,  if  they  are  considered  sepa- 
rately and  as  standing  alone.  But  why  did  not  De  Wette  consider 
more  thoroughly  the  whole  plan  and  design  of  the  book,  before 
he  made  up  his  opinion  from  such  passages  as  these,  and  took  it 
for  granted  that  Coheleth  has  expressed  in  them  his  own  settled 
and  ultimate  conclusions  ?  What  if  one  should  go  into  Paul's 
epistles,  and  extract  from  them  all  the  passages  which  he  designed 
should  be  put  to  the  objector's  account,  and  not  reckoned  to  his  own, 
and  then  insist  that  these  are  the  opinions  of  Paul  ?  Would  the 
apostle  agree  to  be  treated  thus  ?  Certainly  not.  He  would  say, 
that  he  had  not,  indeed,  formally  and  always  mentioned  the  objec- 
tor by  name,  as  often  as  he  has  introduced  him,  because  he  trusted 
to  the  good  sense  of  the  reader  and  the  tenor  of  the  context,  as 
sufficient  to  make  it  manifest  when  he  speaks  himself,  and  when 
he  makes  another  to  speak.  What  if  the  Psalmist's  words,  in 
Ps.  73:  3 — 14,  should  be  put  to  his  account,  as  expressing  his 
own  settled  opinion?  Then  what  is  to  become  of  tlie  remainder 
of  the  Psalm,  where  he  declares  that  he  was  foolish  and  brutish 
in  speaking  as  he  had  done  ?  Then,  in  the  book  of  Job,  are  the 
speeches  of  his  opponents,  who,  as  God  liimself  declares  (Job  42: 
7),  "  did  not  speak  the  thing  that  was  right  concerning  him"  — 

3 


26  §  2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN    AND 

are  these  very  speeches  to  be  taken  as  a  guide  to  our  faith  and 
our  practice  ?  The  absurdity  of  such  a  course  is  manifest,  by  the 
mere  statement  of  the  case.  Why,  then,  may  not  the  same  justice 
be  done  to  Coheleth  as  to  others  ?  Undoubtedly,  there  are  some 
things  said  in  his  book,  which  he  does  not  design  should  be  taken 
as  the  exponents  of  his  own  settled  opinion.  He  raises  doubts 
sometimes  for  the  very  purpose  of  answering  them.  He  some- 
times exhibits  erroneous  maxims  and  precepts,  and  then  corrects 
them.  The  most  natural  account  of  the  plan  of  the  book  seems 
to  be  this,  viz.  that  the  loriter  has  given  a  picture  of  the  struggle 
and  contest  through  ichich  his  own  mind  had  passed,  when  he  sat  out 
on  the  road  of  philosophical  inquiry.  Just  such  is  the  account 
given  by  the  Psalmist  of  his  own  mind,  when  he  saw  the  wicked 
flourishing  and  the  just  perishing.  Before  the  prying  and  inqui- 
sitive mind  of  Coheleth,  a  multitude  of  difficulties  started  up, 
when  he  came  to  inquire  into  the  condition  and  course  of  things 
as  ordinarily  developed. 

It  should  be  called  to  mind  here,  that  the  great  moral  stumbling- 
block  of  the  ancient  world  was,  the  reconciliation  of  the  doctrine 
of  retribution  with  the  phenomena  that  ai'e  constantly  presenting 
themselves  to  our  view.  The  wicked  prosper  ;  the  righteous  are 
miserable,  or  perish.  All  share  one  common  destiny,  since  all  are 
appointed  unto  death.  The  moral  sense  of  men  had  a  strong  per- 
ception of  the  necessity  of  a  retribution  both  just  and  adequate. 
Experience  contradicted  this,  as  to  the  present  world.  To  those 
who  had  not  a  strong  and  lively  faith  in  a  future  state  and  retri- 
bution, these  two  things  appeared  contradictory  and  very  per- 
plexing. This  is  the  grand  problem  which  constitutes  the  basis 
of  the  whole  book  of  Job.  His  opponents  assert  complete  retri- 
bution in  the  present  world.  Job  denies  it.  The  dispute  gives 
occasion  to  all  the  lofty  and  soul-stirring  sentiments  of  this  great 
moral  epic.  The  matter  in  dispute  is  placed  in  every  position, 
examined  on  every  side,  and  everything  right  and  wrong  is  said 
about  it  by  the  disputants.  And  after  all,  the  nodus  is  not  untied, 
but  cut,  God's  dealings  are  an  acknowledged  mystery.  He  does 
not  give  his  reasons  to  man,  why  he  has  so  ordered  things  ;  but 
he  insists  on  it,  that  his  wisdom,  and  knowledge,  and  justice,  and 
mercy,  and  sovereignty  shall  be  fully  acknowledged.  The  issue 
of  the  whole  dispute  is,  that  duty  requires  us  to  take  and  occupy 


METHOD    OF   THE    BOOK.  27 

this  ground  of  acknowledgment.  To  the  future  world,  wliere  all 
things  will  be  adjusted,  no  direct  appeal  is  made.  The  solvent, 
which  of  all  others  a  Christian  would  now  expect  to  be  applied, 
and  which  is  sufUcient  and  satisfactory,  viz.  that  of  adeqiude  fu- 
ture retribution,  is  never  employed  in  the  book  of  Job.  AViiat 
more  than  this  can  be  said  of  Cohelefh  ?  Nothing  more  ;  nor,  with 
any  justice  to  the  book,  even  so  much.  It  has  many  more  recog- 
nitions, more  or  less  direct,  of  a  future  existence  and  reward 
than  the  book  of  Job. 

Let  us  consider  more  particularly,  for  a  moment,  some  of  the 
features  of  the  plan,  not  as  yet  fully  developed.  The  writer  lived, 
as  is  plain  from  the  tenor  of  his  work,  at  a  time  when  the  same 
subject  which  is  the  nodus  of  the  book  of  Job,  was  exciting  the 
anxious  minds  of  many.  The  interest  which  they  took  in  the 
theme  of  retribution,  was  greatly  augmented  by  the  grinding 
oppression  and  aggravated  injustice  of  rulers  and  magistrates. 
Life  was  embittered  (see  4:  1 — 3),  and  multitudes  were  exclaim- 
iDg  :  "  O  Lord,  how  long  ?  "  His  own  mind  had  passed  through 
all  the  stages  of  inquiry  and  perplexity,  before  it  came  to  settled 
and  permanent  conclusions  in  regard  to  some  of  the  topics  of 
inquiry.  It  is  evident,  in  the  progress  of  his  work,  that  his  mind 
is  becoming  more  settled  and  peaceful.  He  comes  at  last  to  a 
final  conclusion,  the  crowning  reward  of  all  his  inquiries,  which 
is,  that  ''  we  should  fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments, 
because  this  is  the  duty  of  every  man."  He  comes  too,  after  all  his 
struggles  and  distresses  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  retribution,  to 
a  full  and  definite  conclusion,  viz.  that  "  God  will  bring  to  judg- 
ment every  work,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or 
whether  it  be  evil,"  12  :  13, 14.  Well  did  he  know,  that  other  in- 
quiring minds  would  have  the  same  battles  to  fight  which  he  had 
fought ;  and  in  his  book,  he  has  laid  before  the  reader  all  the  strug- 
gles through  which  he  passed  himself,  and  the  obstacles  whicli  he 
had  to  overcome.  What  he  had  felt,  others  might  feel.  15ut  many 
others,  perhaps,  would,  if  left  without  special  aid,  be  less  success- 
ful as  to  their  result  than  he  had  been.  He  wished  to  show  his 
sympathy  for  them,  and  to  proffer  them  all  the  aid  in  his  power. 
Hence  he  gives  them,  as  it  were,  the  history  of  his  own  mind, 
throughout  the  contest.  He  brings  before  them  the  doubts  which 
were  suggested  by  observation  and  reflection,  or  in  some  cases, 


28  §  2.     SPECIAL    DESIGN   AND 

perhaps,  were  presented  to  him  by  others.  It  is  these  which  have 
perplexed  and  misled  many  interpreters  of  this  book.  They  have 
taken  the  passages  that  exhibit  these  doubts,  for  the  expressions 
of  the  author's  own  deliberate  opinion.  But  instead  of  this,  such 
doubts  should  be  put  in  the  same  category  with  the  sentiments  of 
Paul's  objectors.  It  matters  not  that  they  had  passed  through  the 
author's  own  mind,  for  they  had  greatly  perplexed  and  disturbed 
him.  The  passing  through  his  mind  does  not  stamp  them  with 
the  authority  of  opinions  settled,  deliberate,  and  final.  It  only 
shows  what  embarrassments  the  writer  had  to  remove,  what  per- 
plexities to  contend  with.  The  question  is  not,  whether  this  or 
that  thought  once  occupied  his  mind,  which  he  has  recorded  in 
writing,  but  whether  this  or  that  thought  was  adopted  by  him, 
and  made  up  a  part  of  his  settled  and  ultimate  opinion. 

If  the  book  be  carefully  read,  with  such  considerations  in  view 
as  have  now  been  suggested,  I  venture  to  say  it  will  appear  in  a 
new  and  much  less  exceptionable  light  to  many  readers.  Indeed, 
there  will  be  only  one  serious  difficulty  remaining  ;  which  is,  that 
we  can  hardly  help  wondering,  that  one  who  believed  in  future 
retribution  and  happiness,  should  not  appeal  to  it  oftener  and 
more  plainly  than  he  does.  But  on  looking  farther,  we  find  this 
equally  applicable  to  nearly  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Moses  does  not  enforce  his  laws  by  considerations  drawn  from  the 
future  world,  nor  by  such  penalties  or  promises  as  the  New  Tes- 
tament holds  up  before  Christians.  Nor  do  the  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Job,  or  the  Prophets,  speak  more  plainly  on  the  point  of  a  future 
world,  than  Coheleth  has  done.  Why  should  we  demand,  that  he 
should  so  far  outstrip  all  his  contemporaries  and  predecessors,  as 
to  make  his  book  a  gospel-treatise  instead  of  an  Old-Testament 
production  ? 

Let  no  one  suggest,  that  the  view  just  taken  of  Coheleth's 
object,  is  one  got  up  merely  for  the  sake  of  parrying  or  avoiding 
difficulties.  I  can  truly  say,  that  it  did  not  present  itself  to  my 
mind  in  this  way.  It  came  from  the  often-repeated  study  of  the 
book,  and  effiarts  to  trace  the  writer's  plan  and  object.  In  order 
to  come  to  a  result  like  that  stated  above,  several  things  were  to 
be  considered.  First,  that  no  writer  of  such  powers  as  the  author 
of  this  book,  would  knowingly  and  palpably  contradict  himself, 
and  this  too  within  limits  so  narrow,  that  in  a  few  minutes  he 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  29 

could  overlook  everything  that  he  had  written.  Secondly, 
that  in  a  book  of  evident  and  professed  disquisition  and  inquiry, 
it  is  to  be  ex})ected  that  objections  will  be  considered  and  an- 
swered, as  well  as  thetical  propositions  made  out,  and  moral  and 
prudential  precepts  given.  Thirdly,  that  the  final  conclusions 
in  such  a  disquisitive  work,  are  naturally  to  be  taken  as  the  index 
of  the  writer's  ultimate  and  established  opinion.  Now  taking 
these  obvious  principles  into  view,  and  conceding  to  them  their 
due  weight,  I  venture  to  say  that  one  would  come,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  to  adopt  the  views  which  have  been  stated  above.  By 
far  the  greater  part,  indeed  almost  the  entirety,  of  the  book  is  on 
the  side  of  sound  morals,  and  insists  upon  watchful  demeanor, 
sobriety,  humility,  trust  in  God,  submission  to  his  will,  and  a 
radical  weanedness  from  the  vanities  of  the  world.  Intermixed 
with  these  grave  subjects  are  many  prudential  maxims,  in  respect 
to  industry,  thrift,  envy  and  slander  of  the  great,  and  other  objects 
both  social  and  industrial.  But  the  parts  which  have  given  occa- 
sion to  the  accusations  of  De  Wette  and  others,  are  actually  of 
little  extent,  and  are  also  sparse.  To  characterize  the  whole  book 
from  these,  and  to  take  these  as  the  true  exponents  of  the  waiter's 
opinions,  is  far  from  either  justice  or  candor. 

Indeed,  the  last  thing  that  one  should  think  of  in  respect  to 
Coheleth,  is  to  charge  him  with  Epicureanism.  In  the  narration 
of  that  series  of  experiments  which  he  had  made,  as  exhibited  in 
chap,  ii,  he  tells  us  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  close,  that  his  iris- 
dom  remained  with  him  through  the  whole.  He  did  not  wallow  in 
pleasure,  nor  indulge  in  any  excess.  lie  made  sober  experiments 
in  the  way  of  inquiry.  In  the  somewhat  numerous  passages,  where, 
after  having  described  some  vanity  of  human  pursuit,  he  exhorts 
"  to  eat,  and  to  drink,  and  to  enjoy  the  good  of  one's  labor,"  there 
is  not  one  which  savors  of  encouragement  to  drunkenness,  or  glut- 
tony, or  revelling.  In  10 :  17,  18,  he  has  most  clearly  shown  his 
condemning  opinion  of  these  excesses.  When  he  exhorts  the 
young  to  make  the  best  of  life,  and  cheerfully  to  enjoy  it,  he  throws 
in  the  salutiry  and  soul-stirring  caution,  "  But  know  thou,  that 
for  all  these  things  God  will  ])ring  thee  to  judgment,"  11:  9.  In 
other  words,  *  Do  all  this,  with  the  constant  recognition  and  re- 
membrance of  the  truth,  that  you  are  to  give  .an  account  to  God, 
for  the  manner  in  which  you  demean  yourself  amid  all  your  en- 
joyments.' 3  * 


30  §  2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN   AND 

Again  and  again  does  he  remind  those,  Avhom  he  addresses  and 
exhorts  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  that  all  which  they  en- 
joy is  the  gift  of  God,  2  :  24,  26.  o  :  18.  3  :  13.  9:  7—9.  In 
other  words,  '  Enjoy  the  gifts  of  God,  the  fruits  of  toil ;  but 
remember  the  hand  from  whence  they  come,  and  be  grateful  to 
the  Giver  of  all  good.'  Is  there  anything  Epicurean  in  all  this  ? 
I  see  no  approach  to  it.  Coheleth,  with  all  his  trials  and  sorrows, 
is  no  ascetic,  no  Franciscan  rnonk.  He  exhorts  not  to  go  bowed 
down  all  one's  days,  covered  with  sackcloth,  assuming  a  gloomy 
countenance,  and  mortifying  the  body.  Men's  garments  should  be 
white,  i.  e.  of  a  cheerful  cast,  and  they  should  see  that  their  heads 
lack  not  spikenard,  (used  on  occasions  of  joy)  ;  yea,  and  that 
they  should  live  joyfully  with  the  wife  of  their  youth,  9  :  7 — 9. 
But  in  all  this  there  is,  or  need  be  found,  only  a  cheerful  and 
thankful  acceptance  of  the  gifts  of  God.  To  charge  this  with 
Epicureanism  is  doing  the  writer  a  manifest  injustice.  Then  as  to 
the  other  charge  made  by  De  Wette,  that  of  skepticism  —  if  the 
book  is  read  in  the  light  where  it  ought  to  be  placed,  there  is  no 
solid  ground  for  making  such  a  charge.  That  which  objectors 
say,  or  else  that  which  doubts  presenting  themselves  to  the  mind 
of  the  inquisitive  writer  would  say,  is  regarded  by  De  Wette  as 
the  expression  of  the  writer's  settled  opinions.  If  Coheleth  be  a 
skeptic,  he  is  not  one,  at  all  events,  in  respect  to  God,  or  his  wis- 
dom, or  goodness,  or  sovereignty,  or  hatred  of  sin,  or  love  of 
righteoiLsness.  Let  us  follow  him  through  a  few  of  these  par- 
ticulars. 

All  which  man  enjoys  as  the  fruit  of  his  toil,  is  to  be  regarded 
as  the  gift  of  God,  2  :  24.  God  has  made  everything  ne^ ,  i.  e.Jif, 
proper,  comely,  in  its  time,  and  made  man  intelligent,  so  that  he 
may  discern  this,  3:11.  To  this  he  has  added  the  power,  and 
bestowed  the  means,  of  enjoying  the  reward  of  toil,  3:13.  God 
is  sovereign  in  the  disposal  of  all  things  and  all  events  ;  and  he 
preserves  this  attitude  of  a  sovereign,  in  order  that  men  may  yield 
him  that  reverential  homage  which  is  his  due,  3:14.  When  men, 
to  their  great  grief,  behold  oppression  and  wickedness,  they  should 
call  to  mind,  that  "  God  will  judge  the  righteous  and  the  wicked, 
since  there  is  a  time  [of  judgment]  for  every  undertaking  and 
every  work,"  3  :  17.  It  is  an  objection  which  suggests,  in  the 
sequel,  that  the  object  of  the  divine  Being,  in  permitting  so  much 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  31 

oppression  and  wickedness,  is  lo  let  men  see  that  they  are  no  bet- 
ter than  the  brutes,  and  that  all  must  perish  in  the  same  way  as 
they  do,  without  any  distinction,  3  :  18 — 21.  God  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped witli  tlie  deepest  reverence,  and  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
instead  of  trusting  in  sacrifices  and  offerings,  4  :  17,  (o  :  1.  Eng.). 
A^ows  unto  God  are  allowable,  but  not  rash  and  foolish  ones,  and 
above  all  not  deceitful  ones,  5  :  1 — 4,  (o:  2 — 5).  God  will  sum- 
marily punish  false  vows,  5  :  5  (5  :  G).  In  all  that  has  respect  to 
religion,  God  is  to  be  regarded  witli  reverential  fear,  5  :  G  (5  :  7). 

When  oppressive  rulers  do  violence  and  wrong,  we  must  call 
to  mind,  that  there  is  One  Most  High  over  them  all,  5:7  (5:8). 
God  gives  men  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  and  the  power  of  enjoy- 
ing them  ;  and  all  these  things  are  to  be  regarded  as  his  gift,  5  : 
17, 18  (5  :  18, 19).  G  :  2.  God  has  fixed  the  order,  and  measure, 
and  manner  of  all  things  and  all  events  ;  he  has  contrasted  pros- 
perity with  adversity,  and  made  them  to  alternate  in  such  a  way, 
that  man  cannot  with  confidence  foretell  the  future,  7:13,14. 
Whoever  pleases  God  shall  be  delivered  from  the  fatal  snares  of 
seductive  women,  7  :  2G.  Men  must  not  charge  their  sins  upon 
God  ;  for  he  made  man  upright,  and  it  is  man  who  has  sought  out 
many  evil  inventions,  7  :  29.  "  It  shall  be  well  with  them  that 
fear  God,  and  ill  with  those  who  do  not  fear  him,"  8  :  12, 13.  The 
work  of  God  is  inscrutable,  8:17.  The  righteous  and  their  works 
are  in  the  hand  of  God.  All  is  at  his  disposal,  so  that  many  things 
take  place,  the  ground  and  reason  of  which  lie  not  within  our  reach 
of  understanding,  9:1.  When  prosperity  comes,  enjoy  it,  and 
regard  it  as  divine  favor,  9  :  7.  God's  ways  are  unsearchable, 
11:5.  God,  our  Creator,  is  to  be  remembered  even  in  our  youth, 
12:1.  The  spirit  returns  to  God  who  gave  it,  12  :  7.  The  grand 
conclusion  of  the  whole  book  is,  that  we  should  "fear  God,  and 
keep  his  commandments ;  because  God  will  bring  everything, 
whether  good  or  evil,  into  judgment,"  12:  13,  14. 

Such  are  the  writer's  views  of  God,  of  his  providence,  and  of 
his  relations  to  men.  In  all  this,  where  is  there  a  trace  of  skep- 
ticism ?  Nay,  we  may  go  nmch  farther :  Where  is  there  more 
unqualified  reverence,  submission,  confidence,  and  obedience  re- 
quired, than  in  this  book  ?  A  submission  the  more  to  be  com- 
mended and  admired,  because  of  the  deep  political  and  civil  gloom 
spread  all  around  the  writer.     Indeed,  his  reverence  for  God 


32  §  2.    SPECIAL   DESIGN   AND 

must  have  been  of  the  highest  kmd ;  for  how  else  could  it  sus- 
tain him,  and  encourage  him  to  look  up  with  such  unqualified 
submission  ?  Holy  Job  broke  forth  into  cursing  the  day  of  his 
birth,  and  allegations  of  partiality  in  the  dealings  of  divine  Provi- 
dence. Coheleth  too  was  led,  for  a  time,  to  loathe  life,  because  of 
severe  oppression  ;  but  he  does  not  take  the  j^osition  of  Job,  nor 
does  he  complain  of  either  partiality  or  injustice  on  the  part  of  his 
Maker.  And  all  this  filial  submission  is  greatly  magnified,  when 
we  call  to  mind  how  faint  his  views  of  the  future  were,  in  com- 
parison with  those  which  the  gospel  has  presented  to  us.  Such 
submission  and  reverence,  under  such  circumstances,  are  enough 
to  make  us  heartily  ashamed  of  ourselves,  when  we  murmur  and 
are  disquieted  in  a  condition  such  as  ours. 

In  respect  to  the  Fatalism  which  is  charged  against  the  book, 
the  preceding  views  of  God  and  of  his  doings  are  a  suflicient  an- 
swer. The  order  of  nature,  of  events,  of  trial  and  suffering,  and 
of  enjoyment  too,  is  indeed  fixed  by  an  overruling  Providence. 
Man  cannot  change  it.  But  what  more  of  fatalism  is  there  in  all 
this,  than  there  is  in  Rom.  viii,  ix,  and  in  many  other  parts  of  the 
Bible  ?  What  more,  than  in  nearly  all  the  Reformed  Creeds  of 
Christendom?  That  God  ha?,  foreordained aW  things,  is  the  com- 
mon doctrine  of  all.  But  still,  it  is  man  "  who  seeks  out  many 
inventions."  The  sinner  can  plead  no  fatality^  in  extenuation  of 
his  guilt.     God  has  foreordained  that  he  should  act  freely. 

Wherein,  then,  consists  the  skepticism  in  question  ?  "  In  the 
fact,"  De  Wette  would  doubtless  reply,  "  that  Coheleth  believed 
nothing  of  a  future  state  and  a  future  retrihution^  He  does  not 
venture  to  say,  that  there  is  nothing  of  it ;  for  3  :  21  shows,  that 
the  question,  whether  the  spirit  goeth  upward,  was  within  the  reach 
of  his  inquiry,  and  of  course  that  he  knew  something  of  this  sub- 
ject. Then  what  is  the  proof  of  the  unbelief  in  question  ?  The 
very  same  proof  as  in  the  case  of  Epicureanism  ;  i.  e.  it  is  drawn 
from  the  former  doubts  of  the  writer's  own  mind,  or  else  from 
allegations  of  objectors.  But  are  there  not  declarations  enough, 
to  show  that  the  mind  of  Coheleth  had  a  different  persuasion 
from  that  which  these  doubts  indicate  ?  It  is  easy  to  answer 
this  question,  and  it  is  of  much  importance  that  it  should  be 
answered. 

Let  the  reader,  then,  turn  to  3  :  17.     After  stating  that  he  had 


METHOD    OF   THE   BOOK.  33 

seen  the  tribunals  of  justice  filled  with  oppression  and  wickedness, 
the  writer  says,  that  "God  will  judge  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked,"  and  that  he  has  a})pointed  a  time  in  which  all  will  come 
under  the  judicial  cognizance  of  his  tribunal.  Again  ;  there  is 
OxE  higher  than  the  highest  earthly  ruler  (5 :  8),  namely,  One 
who  will  punish  oppressors,  (for  of  course  this  is  the  intimation)  ; 
there  is  One  who  will  vindicate  the  oppressed,  that  have  no  com- 
forter here,  4:1.  The  young  may  indeed  rejoice  in  their  blessings  ; 
but  they  are  always  to  keep  in  view  the  judgment  to  come,  11:  9. 
"  God  will  bring  to  judgment  every  work,  with  every  secret  thing, 
whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil,"  12:14.  Even  Knobel 
acknowledges  that  this  last  passage  indicates,  beyond  all  doubt,  a 
future  retribution.  But  since  he  agrees  with  De  Wette  as  to  the 
skepticism  of  the  book,  he  is  driven  to  maintain,  that  this  passage 
was  added  by  a  later  and  a  foreign  hand. 

Thus  much  for  passages  bearing  directly  on  the  ideaof  a  judg- 
ment to  come.  Intimately  and  necessarily  connected  with  these, 
are  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  a  just  retribution.  God  is 
to  be  feared,  3:14.  Sin  makes  him  angry,  5  :  6.  Why  feared  ? 
And  what  will  his  anger  do  ?  Those  that  fear  God,  shall  expe- 
rience deliverance,  7  :  18.  Wickedness  shall  not  deliver  those 
who  are  given  to  it,  8  :  8.  "  It  shall  be  well  with  them  who  fear 
God,"  8:12.  "It  shall  not  be  well  with  those  who  do  not  fear 
him,"  8  :  13.  "  Remember  thy  Creator,"  12:  1 ;  (with  the  impli- 
cation of  reward,  in  case  of  obedience).  "  Fear  God,  and  keep  his 
commandments,"  12  :  13  ;  (with  the  same  implication). 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  a  retribution  for  good  and  evil,  and  of  a 
time  when  every  action  will  be  scanned  and  judged,  lies  scattered 
through  the  whole  book  of  Coheleth.  It  is  impossible  reasonably 
to  doubt  the  state  of  his  mind  in  regard  to  these  things.  But  in 
order  to  cast  farther  light  on  his  meaning,  it  is  necessary  to  take 
into  view  other  things  which  he  has  said  in  relation  to  this  subject. 
He  has,  in  different  ways,  fully  developed  the  sentiment,  that 
retribution  is  not  made  in  the  present  life.  All  experience  the 
same  evils  \  all  die  alike ;  all  are  subject  to  the  same  disa})point- 
ments  ;  the  lot  which  the  righteous  deserves  often  falls  to  the 
wicked,  and  so  vice  versa, ;  the  righteous  perish  not  only  in  their 
righteousness,  but  because  of\{ ;  and  so  the  wicked  prosper  by  rea- 
son of  their  wickedness.     Time  and  chance  happen  to  all  alike ; 


34  §  2.    SPECIAL   DESIGN  AND 

there  is  one  event  or  destiny  to  the  righteous  and  to  the  wicked, 
to  the  clean  and  to  the  unclean.  (See  2 :  14,  15.  3  :  18 — 21.  4 : 
1—3.  6:8.  7:15.  8 :  14.  9:1,2,  11).  Now  although  some  of 
this  is  the  language  of  objection,  yet  the  facts  stated  are  such  as 
cannot  be  denied.  The  force  of  the  objection  arises  from  deduc- 
tions made  out  of  the  facts,  and  does  not  consist  in  the  facts 
themselves. 

We  assume  it,  then,  as  a  plain  doctrine  in  Coheleth,  that  (since 
such  facts  cannot  be  denied)  retribution,  adequate  and  final,  does 
not  take  place  in  the  present  world.  Indeed,  the  testimony  of  all 
ages  unites  in  the  confirmation  of  this  j^osition.  We  are  brought, 
then,  by  all  this,  into  a  predicament  where  we  are  fully  and  entirely 
at  liberty,  and  indeed  are  entitled,  to  make  out  the  following 
syllogism :  — 

(1)  Retribution,  adequate  and  just,  of  good  and  evil,  will 
certainly  be  made.  (2)  It  is  not  made  in  the  present  world. 
Therefore,  (3)  It  must  be  made  in  a  future  world. 

If  there  be  any  way  of  properly  shunning  or  avoiding  this  con- 
clusion, it  is  unknown  to  me.  That  this  process  of  reasoning  is 
built  upon  the  book  itself,  is  quite  plain  and  certain,  from  what 
has  been  produced.  It  would  seem  that  no  intelligent  and  con- 
siderate man  ought  to  estimate  the  understanding  of  Coheleth  at 
so  low  a  rate,  as  to  suppose  him  designedly  to  have  presented  a 
medley  of  palpable  contradictions  in  his  book,  which,  if  really 
admitted,  would  utterly  destroy  respect  for  himself  as  a  writer, 
and  mar  all  the  credit  of  his  work.  On  the  contrary,  one  feels,  in 
reading  the  book  intelligently  and  carefully,  the  grasp  of  a 
powerful  mind  and  of  an  acute  observer  of  men  and  things. 
What  credit  could  he  expect  Epicurean  skepticism  would  gain 
for  a  book,  among  such  a  people  as  the  Hebrews  ?  What  is  there 
in  the  Old  Testament  which  is  congenial  with  this  ?  Nothing  — 
nothing  at  all.  How  then  can  De  Wette's  views  be  made  probable  ? 
—  views  in  direct  opposition  to  all  that  is  Hebrew  ?  And  how  is  it 
possible  to  attribute  the  numerous  passages  of  the  book  before  us, 
(which  take  high  ground  on  the  subject  of  retribution,  and  of 
God's  hatred  of  sin  and  love  of  holiness  and  spiritual  obedience), 
to  a  devotee  of  pleasure  and  a  skeptic  ?  This  question  calls  for 
an  answer  ;  and  an  answer  I  have  endeavored  to  give,  in  the 
preceding  remarks  ;  an  answer,  however,  directly  the  reverse  of 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  35 

De  Wette's.  And  I  may  ap})eal  to  every  intelligent  reader  and 
candid  critic,  whether  my  answer  is  not  fairly  sustained  by  the 
book  itself?  If  so,  then  the  principles  of  exegesis,  applicable  to  the 
book,  must  be  conceded  to  be  such  as  I  have  advocated  above. 

The  attentive  reader  must  have  observed,  that  I  have  as  yet 
made  no  appeal  to  the  inspiration  of  the  book,  in  order  to  sustain 
its  claims  to  our  regard.  I  have  purposely  avoided  this,  because 
those  with  whom  I  have  been  arguing,  do  not  admit  the  claim  or 
the  reality  of  inspiration.  But  after  passing  through  this  contest 
on  merely  ethical  and  critical  grounds,  I  come  now  to  say,  that 
the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  has,  in  common  with  the  other  Old  Testa- 
ment books,  a  claim  to  the  place  which  it  holds  as  one  of  the 
inspired  writings.  The  author  does  not,  indeed,  assert  himself  to 
be  inspired ;  but  neither  do  many  other  writers  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment assert  this  of  themselves.  There  the  book  is,  in  the  midst 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ;  and  there  it  has  been,  at  least  ever 
since  the  period  when  the  Hebrew  canon  was  closed.  There  at 
all  events  it  was,  when  our  Saviour  and  the  apostles  declared 
the  Jewish  Scriptures  to  be  of  divine  origin  and  authmity.  I 
need  not  trace  the  history  of  its  canonical  reception  and  place 
here  ;  and  more  especially  may  I  omit  to  do  this,  inasmuch  as  I 
have  already,  in  my  little  volume  on  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  canvassed  the  whole  subject.  Enough  for  us, 
that  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's  time  held  fast  to  this  book,  and 
that  this  usage  was  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

But  there  is  another  point  of  view,  in  which  this  subject  should 
now  be  placed.  Would  Christ  and  the  apostles  have  sanctioned 
a  work  which  taught  Epicurean  skepticism  ?  It  would  seem  as  if 
this  question  needed  no  answer,  except  that  which  the  very 
asking  of  it  suggests.  Where  is  there  any  parallel  to  such  a 
proceeding,  in  the  history  of  the  sacred  Canon  ?  It  is  not  sup- 
posable,  that  they  took  such  a  view  of  the  book  as  De  Wette's. 

"  But  the  New  Testament,"  it  is  said,  "never  quotes  or  refers 
to  Ecclesiastes."  True  ;  but  where  does  it  quote  Ruth,  Esther, 
Lamentatiors,  Obadiah,  and  some  other  books  ?  The  reason  is 
plain  and  simple,  viz.  that  no  occasion  required  quotation.  The 
argumentum  a  silentio  is  a  very  weak  and  unsatisfactory  argument, 
in  all  cases  of  such  a  nature. 

We  seem  then  to  be  bound  to  concede,  that  the  book  was  re- 


36  §  2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN   AND 

garded  by  Christ  and  the  apostles,  in  a  manner  very  different  from 
that  of  De  Wette,  Knobel,  Hitzig,  Heiligstedt,  and  many  others. 
And  if  so,  then  the  former  found  in  it,  most  surely,  no  Epicurean 
skepticism.  No  laws  of  fair  exegesis  oblige  us  to  find  it.  We 
can  dispose  of  the  seemingly  obnoxious  sentiments,  in  some  parts 
of  it,  in  the  same  way  as  we  do  of  the  like  sentiments  in  the  book 
of  Job,  where  the  objectors  appear  in  propria  persona ;  and  just 
as  we  do  in  Paul's  epistles,  where  they  appear  without  being 
named,  as  they  do  in  the  book  before  us.  We  dispose  of  them  in 
the  same  way  as  we  do  of  what  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  say, 
as  reported  in  the  gospels.  What  they  utter  is  not  authoritative 
either  in  doctrine  or  practice  ;  nor  were  they  at  all  inspired. 
But  an  inspired  writer  has  told  us  what  they  said  and  did,  and 
we  give  full  credit  to  his  narration.  Just  so  in  the  case  before  us. 
The  writer,  (I  believe  him  to  have  been  an  itispired  writer),  has  told 
us  what  doubts  and  difficulties  once  passed  through  his  own  mind, 
or  were  suggested  to  him  by  others  ;  and  we  set  them  down 
merely  for  what  he  intended  them  to  be  considered.  I  say  that 
he  intended  them  to  be  regarded  as  mere  objections,  because 
I  cannot  force  myself  to  believe  him  to  be  so  weak  a  man  as  to 
contradict  himself  so  egregiously  as  De  Wette  makes  him  to  do, 
or  rather  would  make  him  to  do,  if  he  had  brought  both  sides  of 
the  question  into  view.  But  he  has  taken  care  to  shun  the  doing 
of  this,  and  has  made  out  Coheleth's  settled  opinions  merely  from 
his  doubts  and  difficulties.  This  does  not  seem  to  be  holding  the 
balance  Avith  the  equable  hand  of  justice. 

I  feel  compelled  to  say  of  De  Wette's  introduction  to  this  book, 
(in  his  Einleitung),  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  hasty  and  incon- 
dite of  his  productions  ;  and  nothing  can  be  more  evident  to  one 
who  has  thoroughly  studied  the  book,  than  that  he  bestowed  very 
little  more  than  a  hasty  and  superficial  glance  at  the  whole  mat- 
ter. The  section  containing  the  introduction,  was  probably  the 
work  of  a  single  session  in  his  study. 

In  the  investigation  of  the  question  respecting  the  design  of 
Coheleth,  wx  have  come  at  least  to  a  negative  conclusion,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  preceding  positive  ones,  viz.  that  it  was  not  the  author's 
design  to  teach  either  Epicureanism  or  Fatcdism. 

But  have  we  yet  brought  to  view  all  the  topics  about  which 
the  book  descants  ?     We  have  exhibited  the  main  topic,  and  the 


METHOD    OF    THE   BOOK.  37 

one  wliich  stands  next  to  this,  namely,  lessons  or  precepts  of  prac- 
tical wisdom.  We  have  also  touched  on  tliat  of  avarice,  and  that 
of  civil  oppression  anrl* misrule.  A  few  more  to[)ics  must  be 
briefly  suggested,  before  we  can  complete  our  view  of  the  author's 
whole  design. 

No  individual  and  special  topic  is  so  often  discussed,  in  the 
book  before  us,  as  that  of  wisdom.  For  the  most  part  this  word 
has  a  meaning  here,  different  from  that  which  it  more  usually  has 
in  Proverbs,  Psalms,  and  other  Old-Testament  books.  In  gen- 
eral it  is  equivalent  here  to  sagacity,  prudential  dexterity,  shrewd- 
ness, cunning  in  the  better  sense  of  the  word.  Sometimes  it  desig- 
nates that  prudential  foresight,  which  leads  one  to  fear  and  obey 
God ;  for  there  is  sometimes  developed  in  the  book  a  religious 
and  ethical  wisdom;  but  in  most  cases  the  word  is  applied  to 
practical  sagacious  management  of  aflflxirs,  or  wise  demeanor  ;  or  if 
not  to  these,  then  to  sagacity  in  the  investigation  of  various  mat- 
ters, and  ability  to  make  distinctions  between  things  that  differ. 

In  the  commencing  part  of  the  book,  after  giving  us  a  striking 
picture  of  the  vanity  of  all  things  and  their  ceaseless  round  of  uni- 
formity, the  author  proposes,  as  one  great  object  before  him,  to 
"  investigate  hy  wisdom  respecting  everything  that  is  done  under 
the  sun,"  1:13.  He  tells  us  that  "  he  acquired  wisdom  above  all 
who  were  before  him  in  Jerusalem  ;"  and  that  in  order  more  fully 
to  understand  wisdom,  he  contrasted  it  with  folly  and  madness,  1: 
16,  17.  Yet  such  an  ardent  pursuit  of  it  brought  with  it  much 
vexation  and  sorrow,  1 :  18.  In  the  experiments  he  made  by 
resorting  to  all  the  different  means  or  sources  of  pleasure,  he 
cautiously  took  wisdom,  i.  e.  prudential  foresight,  along  with  him, 
so  that  he  might  make  experiments  in  the  best  manner ;  see  2  : 
1 — 11,  and  specially  vs.  3,  9.  In  examining  the  wisdom  possessed 
by  him,  in  order  to  find  its  excellence  or  principal  advantage,  he 
found  that  such  as  possessed  it  could  often  see  where  others  were 
more  or  less  blind,  2  :  13, 14.  Yet  wisdom  could  not  guard  liim 
against  many  ills  of  life,  which  come  equally  on  the  wise  and  the 
foolish.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  he  found  it  to  be  vanity.  Nor 
could  wisdom  secure  his  future  fame  ;  for  all  die  and  ^e  forgotten. 
Here  again  it  showed  itself  to  be  vanity,  even  an  empty  pursuit,  2  : 
14 — 17.  Wisdom,  as  employed  in  the  acquisition  of  wealth,  is 
defeated  in  its  ends  ;  for  the  effort  and  trouble  j^re  great,  and  aU 
4 


38  §  2.     SPECIAL   DESIGN    AND 

that  is  amassed  soon  goes  into  other  hands,  it  may  be  into  those 
of  a  fool,  2 :  18—23.  But  however  w^dom  may  contribute  to 
one's  enjoyment,  by  enabling  him  to  make  a  dexterous  use  of  things, 
it  must  be  acknowledged  rather  as  the  gift  of  God,  than  as  any- 
thing of  which  we  can  boast,  2 :  24—26.  Wisdom  enables  even 
a  child  to  act  more  successfully  than  the  aged  who  are  foolish,  4 : 
13.  But  in  regard  to  many  evils  that  come  upon  us,  the  wise 
man  has  no  advantage  over  the  fool,  6 :  8.  Rebuke  from  the 
wise  is  salutary,  7:5.  If  a  man  that  is  wise,  betakes  himself  to 
oppression,  it  will  soon  make  him  like  to  a  madman,  7  :  7.  Wis- 
dom is  of  some  avail,  as  well  as  wealth ;  for  it  often  protects  men 
from  threatened  evils,  even  where  money  would  not  do  this,  7 : 
11,  12.  It  is  better  than  the  forces  and  weapons  of  war,  7:19. 
In  seeking  for  examples  of  it,  in  order  to  pry  into  its  true  nature, 
he  has  very  rarely  been  able  to  find  them,  7  :  25 — 28.  In  fact, 
the  thing  is  too  recondite  and  deep  to  be  fully  attained,  as  to  its 
real  nature,  7  :  23—25.  Wisdom  will  exhilarate  the  man  who 
can  apply  it  to  the  solution  of  difficult  things,  8:1.  Wisdom  will 
teach  discreet  behavior  in  presence  of  rulers,  8 : 5.  Wisdom,  as  to 
all  matters  that  are  transacted,  is  difficult  of  attainment,  and  no 
one  can  thoroughly  explore  it,  8  :  16, 17.  Wisdom  belongs  to  the 
present  life,  9:10;  will  not  always  be  successful,  9:11;  yet  some- 
times it  achieves  important  things  in  the  defence  of  those  who 
are  attacked,  9  :  13  —15.  It  is  better  than  weapons  of  war,  9  :  18. 
It  is  spoiled  by  a  little  folly,  10  :  1.  It  is  needed  and  is  useful 
in  almost  all  of  even  the  common  concerns  of  life,  10 :  2 — 15. 
The  Preacher,  as  a  wise  man  (a  Hakam),  taught  the  people 
knowledge,  12:9.  The  words  of  the  wise  are  a  powerful  stimu- 
lus to  the  minds  of  men,  who  are  inclined  to  be  inefficient  or  to 
do  but  little,  12:11. 

Wisdom,  then,  is  placed  in  a  great  variety  of  attitudes,  some  of 
which  seem,  at  first  view,  to  be  incongruous  with  others.  First, 
he  sought  wisdom  with  much  eagerness,  and  made  himself  more 
wise  than  any  before  him  at  Jerusalem.  Then  he  found  wisdom 
to  be  of  no  avail  in  many  cases,  and  that  the  pursuit  of  it  was 
vanity.  At  another  time  we  find  him  saying,  that  when  he  sought 
after  it,  he  found  it  was  too  deep  and  remote  to  be  explored,  7 : 
23,  24.  At  one  time,  like  every  other  thing  that  man  pursues,  it 
is  vanity ;  at  another,  it  answers  important  purposes  in  command- 


METHOD    OF    THE   BOOK.  39 

ing  success,  and  in  defending  from  dangers  that  threaten.     At 
one  time,  we  feel  almost  as  if  he  were  speaking  ironically  con- 
cerning it,  when  lie  speaks  of  it  as  merely  enabling  one  to  see 
what  the  fool  does  not  see.   But  when  all  parts  of  the  picture  are 
carefully  compared,  it  will  be  found  that  wisdom  is  often  spoken 
of  relatively,  i.  e.  as  related  to  certain  things  over  which  we  have 
no  control.    In  such  a  case,  he  calls  it  vanity.    Whatever  may  be 
its  value  in  other  respects,  it  cannot  keep  off  many  of  the  ills  of 
life,  nor  prevent  our  exposedness  to  many  losses  and  trials,  nor 
enable  us  to  escape  from  death.    It  can  avail  us  only  in  prudential 
matters,  where  caution  and  sagacity  are  useful  and  necessary  to 
guard  against  danger,  or  to  win  success.     Here,  indeed,  there  is 
something  valuable  in  it,  and  worthy  of  being  possessed.     But 
when  specidativchj  investigated  (7  :  23  seq.),  it  soon  presents  dif- 
ficulties that  we  cannot  overcome,  and  we  are  forced  to  abandon 
the  pursuit.     But  when  practically  exercised,  it  is  that  which  is 
needed  in  all  the  concerns  of  life,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  if 
they  are  capable  of  being  managed,  and  require  to  be  managed, 
so  as  to  meet  our  wishes. 

The  author  seems  to  hold  on  to  this  mental  quality,  with  much 
more  tenacity  than  he  does  to  any  of  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  busi- 
ness or  pleasure  among  men.  The  reputation  of  Solomon  for 
wisdom,  seems  to  have  thrown  a  charm  around  the  acquisition  of 
it.  Yet  after  all,  conceding  the  aid  which  it  gives,  and  its  pre- 
eminence above  folly,  it  is  not  that  high  and  enduring  good  after 
which  he  is  seeking.  Some  credit,  indeed,  is  due  to  it,  for  in 
many  ways  it  is  useful ;  but  it  lacks  the  power  of  making  us 
superior  to  the  common  and  unavoidable  evils  of  life. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  find  at  once  a  justification  of  the 
definition  o^  wisdom,  as  employed  in  this  book,  which  I  have  given 
above.  It  is  not  wisdom  in  the  high  sense  which  the  word  often 
bears  in  the  book  of  Proverbs.  The  fear  of  God  is  there  regarded 
as  the  heginning  of  wisdom.  Obedience  to  his  commands  as  the 
consummation  of  it.  It  is  almost  the  equivalent  of  piety ;  while 
folly  is  anotiier  name  for  wickedness.  Not  so  in  the  book  before  us. 
Wisdom  and  folly  are  indeed  abundantly  brought  into  contrast ; 
but  here  they  are  equivalent  to  sagacity  and  to  the  lack  of  it  ; 
here  they  are  prudent  caution  and  foresight,  or  the  want  of  it ; 
and  here  they  are  dexterity  of  management,  or-  the  want  of  it. 


40  §2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN   AND 

In  a  word,  they  are  practical  wisdom  or  the  want  of  it,  as  de- 
veloped in  all  the  circumstances  and  engagements  of  life. 

This,  it  is  evident,  is  altogether  adapted  to  one  of  the  leading 
purposes  of  the  book,  viz.  that  of  giving  prudential  maxims  or 
rules  of  life,  so  that  we  may  avoid  as  many  evils  as  possible,  and 
acquire  and  enjoy  as  much  good.  While  the  author  gives  us  such 
a  vivid  picture  of  the  vanity  of  the  present  world,  he  endeavors  to 
guide  us  in  such  a  way,  as  that  we  may  suffer  the  least  that  is 
possible  in  consequence  of  this  vanity.  Wisdom  is  so  important 
to  the  attainment  of  this  end,  that  it  cannot  be  dispensed  with ; 
but  the  man  who  pursues  it  with  the  expectation  that,  in  itself,  it 
is  adequate  to  procure  for  him  stable  and  certain  good,  will  always 
be  disappointed.  But  of  Avisdom  in  the  sense  of  religion  or  piety, 
this  cannot  be  truly  said  ;  for  the  contrary  is  true.  It  is  manifest, 
then,  that  this  is  not  the  kind  of  wisdom  which  is  so  often  dis- 
cussed by  Coheleth. 

On  the  whole,  that  a  philosopher,  (for  such  Coheleth  professes 
himself  to  be,  i.  e.  a  Q^n)?  should  concern  himself  with  the  exami- 
nation and  discussion  of  wisdom,  is  altogether  congruous  with  the 
nature  of  his  book,  and  is  what  we  might  naturally  expect.  But 
how  different  are  his  views  from  those  of  Plato  and  even  of  Soc- 
rates. Speculative  discriminations,  and  the  power  of  making  them 
acutely,  are  the  ao<^ia  of  the  Greeks ;  while  with  the  Hebrews, 
either  rehgion,  or  practical  sagacity  and  prudence  in  the  affairs  of 
life,  constitute  the  essence  of  wisdom.  Of  metaphysical  reason- 
ing and  subtilties  they  had  little  or  no  conception,  or  at  any  rate, 
they  felt  little  or  no  interest  in  them. 

As  I  have  already  intimated,  there  is  not  the  least  trace  of  any 
acquaintance,  on  the  part  of  Coheleth,  with  the  Greek  philosophy, 
in  any  portion  of  his  book.  But  still,  the  fame  of  Grecian  phi- 
losophy might  have  been  one  of  the  moving  causes  of  writing  the 
book.  The  heathen  was  disposed  to  say  to  the  Jew  :  '  What 
ground  for  claiming  preeminence  have  you  ?  The  knowledge  of 
oocpia  does  not  exist  among  you.'  Coheleth  has  written  a  book 
which  furnishes  an  answer  to  this  taunting  allegation,  although 
perhaps  it  was  not  designed  to  do  so.  '  Here  is  our  philosophy,' 
a  Jew  might  reply,  who  held  this  book  in  his  hand.  And  there 
indeed  it  was  ;  and  in  a  religious,  moral,  and  practical  point  of 
view,  it  was  worth  more  than  all  the  philosophy  of  Greece. 


METHOD    OF    THE   BOOK.  41 

Before  we  quit  the  present  subject,  it  will  be  well  to  notice  the 
singular  theory  of  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  some  others,  in  regard  to 
wisdom  in  this  book.  It  is  this,  viz.  that  Coheleth  is  but  another 
name  for  wisdom ;  and  inasmuch  as  Solomon  was  regarded  by 
some  of  the  later  Hebrews  as  wisdom  incarnate  (Wisd.  9  :  7,  8. 
7:  1  seq.),  so  it  is  incarnate  Wisdom  in  the  person  of  Solomon, 
who  speaks  tliroughout  this  book;  (Hitz.  Comm.  on  1: 1).  But 
how  such  a  theory  as  this  could  be  soberly  advanced  and  de- 
fended, I  cannot  well  imagine.  (1)  In  the  book  of  Proverbs,  chap, 
viii,  ix,  in  Sirach  chap,  xxiv,  where  wisdom  is  personified,  we  have 
the  most  express  intimations  of  it ;  which  is  as  much  as  to  say, 
that  without  these  intimations  the  reader  would  be  in  danger  of 
mistaking  the  writer.  Nothing  of  this  kind,  however,  is  seen  in 
Coheleth.  He  appears,  speaks,  acts,  everywhere  as  a  simple  per- 
sonage, and  not  as  a  mysterious  symbol.  If  such  were  not  the 
case,  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  be  advertised  of  it.  (2) 
Whenever  wisdom  is  elsewhere  jjersonijied^  i.  e.  introduced  as  a 
person,  she  is  not  personified  in  another  individual,  but  only  in 
and  by  herself.  In  other  words,  she  is  introduced  as  personified 
Wisdom,  and  not  as  Solomon.  (3)  Things  are  attributed  to 
wisdom  here,  which,  if  we  suppose  abstract  and  absolute  wisdom 
to  be  meant  by  the  word,  are  utterly  incompatible  with  its  nature. 
For  example,  wisdom  is  introduced,  (i.  e.  provided  Coheleth  is  its 
representative  or  incarnation),  as  making  strenuous  efforts  to 
acquire  itself,  and  does  actually  acquire  itself  with  success  ;  1:16, 
17.  2:12.  Wisdom  remained  with  itself,  2:9;  and  yet  wis- 
dom was  far  away  fi-om  wisdom,  and  too  deep  and  remote  to 
be  understood,  7  :  23,  24.  In  wisdom  is  mlich  vexation,  1:18. 
Wisdom  is  altogether  vanity,  2:  15,  16.  Wisdom  exerts  itself 
most  strenuously  to  find  out  itself,  but  is  unable  to  do  it,  8:16, 17. 

How  is  it  possible  now,  I  ask,  to  predicate  all  these  things  of 
wisdom  absolute,  as  dwelling  in  Coheleth  ?  The  bare  inspection 
of  them  supersedes  all  argument  in  the  case.  It  is  clear  as  the 
sun,  that  Coheleth  is  a  person  seeking  to  obtain  wisdom,  that  he 
obtains  it  imperfectly,  and  finds  it  on  many  occasions  useful, 
while  in  many  others  it  is  quite  powerless.  Could  abstract 
wisdom  say  of  herself,  that  she  was  vanity,  and  unknown  to  her- 
self, and  unknowable  ?  And  although  this  theory  can  boast  of 
patrons  with  such  names  as  Geier,  Le  Clerc,  Rambach,  Carpzov, 

4* 


42  §  2.    .SPECIAL    DESIGN    AND 

Koster,  and  others  of  past  days,  and  of  Ewald  and  Hitzig,  now 
living,  it  must  be  regarded  still,  (at  least  it  seems  so  to  me),  as 
coming  from  the  land  of  dreams  ;  and  these  appear  to  be  rather 
disturbed  ones. 

Another  topic,  which  comes  under  frequent  discussion,  is  that 
of  riches,  and  efforts  to  amass  them.  But  as  this  has  been  some- 
what fully  exhibited,  near  the  beginning  of  the  present  section, 
I  merely  advert  to  it  here,  as  the  reader  can  consult  what  is 
there  said.  It  would  seem,  from  the  vivid  pictures  of  avarice, 
or  of  amassing  great  wealth,  that  it  was  probably  a  frequent  vice 
in  the  time  of  Ck)heleth,  and  that  he  regarded  it  with  that  strong 
disapprobation  which  is  everywhere  expressed  in  his  book.  It 
is  not  the  mere  matter  of  possessing  or  acquiring,  which  he  dis- 
approves, but  the  setting  one's  heart  on  loealth,  and  the  expecta- 
tion that  any  solid  happiness  can  be  secured  by  it. 

Other  topics  are  also  included  in  the  book.  But  they  are 
merely  touched  upon,  as  it  Avere  incidentally,  and  do  not  appear 
to  have  belonged  to  the  main  parts  of  his  design.  For  example, 
the  £o\\j  of  ambition  is  represented  in  strong  colors,  in  4:  13—16. 
One  cannot  help  thinking  of  "  the  old  and  foolish  king  "  as  being 
Solomon,  in  his  old  age,  when  led  away  by  his  heathen  wives. 
The  young  man  who  comes  into  his  place,  seems  to  be  Jeroboam, 
who  led  away  ten  parts  of  the  Hebrew  nation.  His  unhappy 
doom  is  briefly  but  forcibly  related.  But  we  miss,  in  this  book, 
many  of  the  topics  which  we  might  naturally  expect  would  be 
touched  on,  as  they  concern  the  means  in  vain  resorted  to  for  the 
sake  of  securing  enjoyment.  Whoredom  and  concubinage  are 
scarcely  brought  to  view.  Many  vices  that  were  common,  such 
as  defrauding,  stealing,  idleness,  prodigality,  and  the  like,  so 
often  treated  of  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  are  scarcely,  or  not  at 
all,  glanced  at  here.  It  was  not  within  the  scope  of  the  author's 
design,  to  bring  all  vices  into  view.  As  a  remarkable  circum- 
stance of  this  nature,  may  be  mentioned  the  entire  omission  of 
any  reference  to,  or  mention  of,  idolatry.  One  is  ready  to  ask : 
When  could  this  book  have  been  written  ?  Under  good  kings, 
none  or  little  of  the  oppression  and  perversion  of  justice,  so  often 
complained  of,  would  exist ;  the  bad  kings  were,  nearly  or  quite 
all  of  them,  idolaters.  Yet  oppression  is  a  topic  rife  in  the  book ; 
but  not  one  complaint  is  there  of  idolatry,  and  nothing  is  said  of 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  43 

the  heatlien.     May  not  this  circumstance  have  some  important 
bearing  on  the  time  when  the  book  was  written  ? 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  we  may  safely  deduce  the  conclu- 
sion, that  it  was  not  the  design  of  the  author  to  compose  a 
complete  Code  of  Morals.  His  great  theme  is  the  vanity  of  all 
earthly  objects  and  pursuits ;  and  whatever  has  relation  to  this,  so 
as  to  illustrate  and  confirm  it,  we  may  expect  to  find  in  his  work. 
Yet  not  all  of  the  lesser  things  are  mentioned,  which  might  be  said 
to  belong  even  to  this  category.  lie  aims  at  the  more  important 
ones,  which  will  leave  a  deep  impression.  Having  gone  through 
with  these,  his  work  is  complete,  for  he  has  done  all  which  he 
intended  to  do. 

Having  stated  at  great  length  the  general  o'bject  or  design  of 
the  book,  and  also  the  leading  particulars  which  it  comprises, 
and  everywhere  appealed  to  the  book  itself  in  the  way  of  verifi- 
cation, I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  canvass  at  any  length  the  many 
and  different  theories  in  relation  to  this  subject.  I  shall  merely 
glance  at  some  of  them.  (1)  Some,  e.  g.  Desvoeux,  Staudlin, 
and  Rohde,  make  the  author's  object  exclusively  a  religious  one. 
But  the  small  portion  of  the  book,  which  bears  directly  on  this 
subject,  will  hardly  sustain  this  view.  (2)  Others,  e.  g.  Luther, 
Bauer,  Gaab,  Bertholdt,  Haenlein,  Jahn,  and  Schmidt,  make  it  a 
practical  essay,  designed,  as  some  of  them  assert,  to  teach  us  how 
to  live  joyfully  and  quietly  amidst  the  sorrows  and  troubles  of 
life ;  others,  to  show  us  how  to  avoid  suffering ;  others,  how  to 
bear  with  sorrow  and  joy,  good  fortune  and  misfortune  ;  others, 
to  stop  the  mouths  of  comi)laining  and  murmuring  men  ;  others, 
to  direct  all  our  efforts,  and  keep  them  within  due  bounds.  All  of 
these  theories  have  some  foundation  in  particulars  here  and  there 
of  the  book,  but  only  in  particulars.  The  general  tenor  of  the 
book  does  not  correspond  with  any  of  them.  (3)  Others  admit 
a  theoretical  design.  Herder,  Eichhorn,  De  AVette,  and  Fried- 
lander,  state  simply,  that  the  author  designed  to  show  the  vanity 
of  human  affairs.  So  far  as  this  goes,  since  it  has  a  generic 
aspect,  it  is  correct ;  but  it  does  not  of  itself  cover  the  whole 
ground,  as  we  have  seen  above.  (4)  Paulus,  Umbreit,  and 
Koster,  maintain  that  the  subject  is  the  inquiry :  What  is 
man's  highest  good  in  his  present  state  ?  But  this  gives  the 
book  too  much  the  aspect  of  theoretical  Greek  philosophizing. 


44  §  2.     SPECIAL    DESIGN   AND 

(5)  Doderlein,  Van  der  Palm,  and  Rosenmiiller,  state  the  object 
to  be  both  theoretical  and  practical,  viz.  to  show  the  nothing- 
ness of  human  life  and  human  things,  and  to  give  practical 
rules  which  grow  out  of  this.  Rosenmiiller  adds,  that  the  author 
designs  to  show  how  a  man  may  enjoy  present  good,  and  live 
virtuously  and  piously  so  as  to  please  God.  This  comes  near 
to  the  true  mark.  Knobel  has  done  best  of  all :  "  The  design  is,  to 
show  the  iwthingness  of  human  life  and  efforts,  and  to  impart  such 
practical  iiistruction  relative  to  tlie  conduct  of  men,  as  their  present 
condition  demxinds ; "  Comm.  s.  39. 

It  is  hardly  worth  mentioning,  that  Kaiser,  a  man  of  some 
note  for  learning  and  acuteness  in  Germany,  has  found  in 
Coheleth  an  allegorico-historical  poem,  exhibiting  the  lives  of  the 
Jewish  kings  from  Solomon  down  to  Zedekiah.  In  constructing 
this  fancy-work  he  has  shown  much  acuteness,  exhibited  vast 
reading  and  extensive  learning,  and  manifested  a  shrewdness  at 
combination  which  is  uncommon.  So  far  as  I  know,  he  has 
never  made  a  single  convert  to  his  opinion.  Few  minds  out  of 
Germany  are  gifted  with  such  powers  of  discovery,  as  are  devel- 
oped here  in  his  schemes.  They  may  well  rest  contented,  how- 
ever, with  their  lack  of  such  a  rare  gift  as  this  writer  seemed 
to  himself  to  possess. 

It  is  a  striking  fact,  that  most  interpreters  of  Coheleth  have 
found  in  it  no  plan  at  all.  It  is  made  up,  in  their  view,  of 
various  apothegms,  proverbs,  maxims,  etc.,  thrown  together  with- 
out regard  to  order  or  method,  and  is  a  real  thesaurus  of  miscel- 
lanies. Nachtigal  maintains,  that  it  is  a  collection  of  rival  songs, 
gathered  from  various  Schools  of  the  Prophets.  This  deserves 
the  next  place  to  the  plan  of  Kaiser.  What  has  been  adduced 
above  in  order  to  show  the  nature  of  the  plan,  renders  any  dis- 
cussion here  of  Nachtigal's  view  unnecessary.  Umbreit,  Van 
der  Palm,  Spohn,  and  Paulus,  find  this  work  filled  with  trans- 
positions of  order,  and  dislocations.  Whoever  reads  the  book, 
however,  with  attention,  when  placed  in  the  light  that  has  of  late 
been  cast  upon  it,  will  need  no  other  refutation  of  such  a  theory. 

Others,  e.  g.  Michaehs,  Rosenmiiller,  Van  der  Palm,  and 
Paulus,  divide  the  book  into  two  parts,  (to  which,  however,  they 
assign  diverse  limits),  in  the  one  of  which  the  vanity  of  things 
is  established,  and  in  the  other  precepts  are  given  how  to  demean 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  45' 

one's  self,  and  how  to  secure  any  good.  Koster  makes  four 
divisions.  (1)  'Disclosure  of  the  absolute  good.  (2)  Of  the 
relative  good.  (3)  The  fool  and  the  wise  are  contrasted,  and 
true  wisdom  pointed  out.  (4)  This  wisdom  is  considered  in  its 
relation  to  the  various  conditions  of  life.'  But  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  draw  i)ali)able  lines  of  separation  between  these 
parts,  or  to  show  that  they  do  not  intermingle  with  each  other. 
Herder,  Eichhorn,  Friedlandcr,  and  Doderlein,  acknowledge  a 
general  unity  of  the  book,  and  a  somewhat  regular  progress  in 
its  contents.  But  as  to  any  preconcerted  plan  of  arrangement 
in  respect  to  particulars,  they  think  that  nothing  certain  can  be 
made  out.  The  contents  have  throughout  a  general  relation,  but 
the  particulars  are  too  miscellaneous,  as  they  think,  to  be  sep- 
arated and  arranged  in  any  specific  order. 

In  a  work  such  as  that  before  us,  and  after  the  representations 
given  above  of  what  has  been  actually  done  by  the  author,  no 
one  will  expect  that  the  critic  can  make  out  a  regular  and  formal 
disposition  of  the  whole,  after  the  manner  which  modern  logic 
and  rhetoric  would  demand.  As  has  already  been  said  (p.  22),  the 
Hebrews  w^ere  strangers  to  the  training  of  schools  of  art,  and 
their  writings  never  exhibit  any  special  regard  to  it.  But  still, 
there  is  '  a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an  end,'  in  Coheleth,  iryie- 
pendent  of  the  mere  local  position  of  its  contents.  His  first 
object  is,  to  show  the  vanity  of  human  efforts  and  of  all  earthly 
things  in  which  men  seek  satisfaction.  This  part  comprises  the 
first  four  chapters.  He  begins  with  the  unchangeable  order  of 
things  in  the  natural  world.  Over  this,  man  can  acquire  no 
influence,  and  have  no  control,  (1  :  4 — 11).  He  then  proceeds, 
in  various  ways,  to  illustrate  and  establish  the  position,  that  all 
human  efforts  to  obtain  abiding  good  in  the  present  world,  are 
vain  and  fruitless.  The  acquisition  of  wisdom,  or  riches,  or 
honors,  and  also  indulgence  in  sensual  pleasure,  fails  of  its  end. 
The  most  to  which  one  can  attain,  is  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  his 
toil  in  the  sober  gratification  of  the  natural  appetites.  Provi- 
dence has  8">  arranged  the  vicissitudes  of  tilings,  that  they  all 
have  their  regular  course  ;  and  all  that  we  can  do  is  merely  to 
submit  to  this,  having  no  power  to  change  or  arrest  it.  After  all 
the  strivings  of  men,  all  go  down  to  the  grave,  and  perish  in 
common  with  other  living  creatures  around  them.     In  fact,  so 


46  §  2.    SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

multiplied  are  the  sorrows  of  life,  resulting  from  man's  weak- 
ness, and  springing  from  oppression,  and  from  vain  strife  for 
wealth  and  defeated  projects  of  ambition,  that  it  is  better  to  die 
than  to  live,  (1:  12  —  4:  16). 

Thus  far  the  theory  of  the  book.  In  all  this,  there  is  only  some 
three  or  four  hints  of  a  practical  nature,  such  as  2  :  24.  3  :  12,  13. 
4 :  6,  9.  These  seem  to  proceed  from  spontaneous  bursts  of  feel- 
ing, which  are  occasioned  by  reflection  on  the  subject-matter 
before  him.  But  the  general  theory  being  thus  established,  he 
now  comes  to  the  part,  where  he  mingles  precept  and  practical  in- 
struction with  the  representation  of  facts  and  occurrences.  In  4  ; 
17  of  the  Hebrew,  (it  should  be  5  :  1,  as  in  our  English  transla- 
tion), he  first  begins  to  speak  imperatively  or  in  the  way  of  exhor- 
tation. His  very  first  topic,  now,  is  that  of  religion.  Frequenting 
the  place  of  worship,  prayer,  offerings,  and  vows,  are  here  brought 
to  view,  and  instructions  are  given.  Thence  he  proceeds  to  descant 
on  a  variety  of  topics,  with  which  the  happiness  and  comfort  of 
men  are  deeply  concerned.  Several  of  these  topics,  e.  g.  riches, 
wisdom,  the  oppression  of  rulers,  etc.,  are  introduced  again  and 
again,  as  occasion  prompts,  and  in  order  to  present  them  in  all 
their  important  aspects.  In  the  course  of  this  part  of  his  work, 
divers  objections  are  presented ;  some  of  which  are  answered 
forthwith,  and  some  after  intervening  matter  has  been  thrown  in, 
which  pressed  upon  his  mind.  To  trace  the  course  of  thought 
through  this  part  of  his  work  requires  not  a  little  of  study  and 
effort.  Most  commentators  have,  indeed,  abandoned  all  effort  to 
trace  any  connection  here,  or  to  find  any  general  thread  of  dis- 
course—  any  generic  unity  in  the  whole.  But  the  intelligent 
and  diligent  reader  may  still  find  reward  here  for  his  toil.  There 
is,  in  reality,  much  less  of  the  aphoristic,  the  gnomic,  and  the 
apothegmatic,  than  it  is  common  to  suppose  ;  as  has  been  already 
shown  above.  Even  aphorisms,  which  make  their  appearance, 
are  not  introduced  on  their  own  account,  but  in  order  to  make  a 
comparison,  or  complete  an  illustration. 

When  we  come  to  chap,  ix,  the  whole  discourse  takes  a  differ- 
ent turn.  We  have  thenceforth  no  more  of  the  desponding 
declarations:  All  this  have  I  seen  ;  all  this  have  I  tried;  no  more 
of  the  cheerless  conclusion  :  All  this  is  vanity.  The  doubts  and 
queries  are  dismissed,  and  chap.  ix.  stands  on  new  ground.     The 


METHOD    OF   TUE   BOOK.  47 

ultimate  conclusions  to  which  Coheleth  has  come,  after  examining 
into  the  whole  matter  before  him,  are  now  brought  before  us. 
God  is  supreme,  and  all  things  and  all  men  are  in  his  hands. 
He  has  made,  and  intends  to  make,  no  distinction  between  men, 
as  to  their  mortality  and  exposedness  to  suffering.  This,  although 
it  is  a  source  of  much  concern  and  sorrow,  must  be  borne  as 
having  been  appointed  by  him.  Rational  and  cheerful  enjoy- 
ment, so  far  as  practicable,  he  permits  and  even  enjoins.  More- 
over, wisdom  may  alleviate  some  evils,  and  prevent  some  others ; 
so  that  although  it  is  not  itself  the  chief  good,  and  cannot  of  itself 
secure  soHd  and  lasting  happiness,  it  may  be  of  much  use,  even 
in  the  common  affairs  of  life.  In  the  midst  of  exposure  to  oppres- 
sion and  misfortune,  it  may  help  to  direct  our  conduct,  so  far  as 
to  avoid  as  much  evil,  and  secure  as  much  good,  as  is  possible. 
A  diligent  observance  of  active  duty,  and  a  thankful  enjoyment 
of  what  can  be  enjoyed,  are  the  sum  of  what  we  can  do  to  miti- 
gate the  sorrows  and  trials  of  life.  Through  all  and  in  all  with 
which  we  are  conceraed,  and  at  all  seasons  of  life,  God  is  to  be 
remembered,  and  also  his  judicial  power  to  be  recognized.  Then 
comes,  as  a  very  apposite  conclusion  to  the  whole,  a  description 
of  old  age,  and  its  preparation  for,  and  approach  to  the  tomb. 
Here  the  writer  rises  above  himself,  and  breaks  out  into  a  strain 
almost  purely  poetical.  In  his  own  mind,  he  looks  back  on  all 
the  various  struggles  and  sufferings  of  life  which  had  preceded ; 
and  now  he  goes  on  to  show  here,  that  the  end  of  life  must  be 
after  the  like  tenor  with  the  preceding  part  of  it.  It  ends  in 
weakness,  rendered  more  grievous  by  infirmity  and  sorrow.  The 
dust  returns  to  dust.  And  as  he  has  before  declared,  that  there 
is  an  appointed  time  for  retributive  justice  to  be  executed,  so  the 
soul  returns  to  the  God  who  gave  it,  in  order  that  this  may  be 
accomplished. 

Thus  ends,  very  appropriately,  the  book  before  us.  Its  end  is 
consonant  with  its  beginning.  The  final  and  solemn  declaration 
over  the  grave  of  departed  man  is  :  Vanity  of  vanities  I  All 
IS  VANITT !  All  that  is  added  by  the  writer,  is  merely  a  brief 
account  of  himself,  and  of  his  object  in  writing  the  book.  It 
was  to  give  instruction  ;  the  crowning  part  and  essence  of  which 
is,  that  we  should  fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments, 


48  §  2.     SPECIAL   DESIGN   AND 

BECAUSE    HE    WILL    BRING    EVERY    WORK   AND    EVERY    SECRET 
THING    INTO    JUDGMENT   BEFORE    HIM. 

After  having  taken  such  an  extended  view  of  the  method  and 
design  of  Ecclesiastes,  I  ventnre  to  say,  that  those  who  regard 
the  book  as  without  plan,  and  without  any  unity  of  design,  can 
hardly  have  read  it  with  becoming  attention.  Plaji  there  is  not, 
in  the  modern  logical  and  rhetorical  sense  of  that  word,  as  has 
already  been  fully  conceded  ;  but  as  to  a  definite  design,  and  the 
general  features  of  its  execution,  there  can  hardly  be  any  room 
for  doubt.  In  a  word,  it  is  Hebrew  philosophizing,  and  not 
Greek  or  English  philosophizing. 

And  now  a  word  more  on  the  great  question  so  often  asked : 
<  How  could  the  writer,  if  he  believed  in  future  retribution,  have 
everywhere  avoided  bringing  it  into  view  ?  Where  else,  in  such 
a  world  as  he  describes  this  to  be,  could  any  one  go  for  comfort  ? 
Where  else  find  a  ray  of  hope?  It  is  spontaneous  with  us, 
when  we  look  at  the  multiplied  evils  of  life,  to  resort  to  the 
future  world  as  a'  ground  of  hope  and  satisfaction.  We  look  to 
a  future  tribunal,  to  satisfy  our  minds  concerning  the  justice  of 
God,  and  we  feel  that  his  providential  dealings  are  all  to  be 
vindicated  and  reconciled  at  that  tribunal.  Why  did  not  Co- 
heleth  act  in  the  same  way  ? ' 

After  having  so  fully  discussed  this  subject  above,  (p.  33  seq),  and 
also  in  my  Commentary  (on  3 :  17),  it  is  needless  for  me  to  say 
much  here.  But  I  may  remark,  that  there  is  something  of  the 
a  priori  in  this  demand  on  Coheleth.  We  decide  within  our- 
selves rather  what  he  ought  to  have  ivritten,  than  occupy  ourselves 
only  with  what  he  has  written.  But  passing  this,  let  me  in  all 
sincerity  and  earnestness  ask :  Is  there  any  more  reference,  in 
the  copious  book  of  Job,  to  2i  future  state,  than  in  the  brief  one  of 
Coheleth  ?  There  can  be,  as  I  think,  but  one  answer.  There  is 
not  anything  like  as  much  reference  of  this  nature ;  and  what 
there  is,  or  what  is  implied,  is  far  short  of  Coheleth  in  explicit- 
ness.  I  am  aware  that  many  readers  will  start  at  this,  and  point 
me,  with  confidence  that  I  am  mistaken,  to  that  famous  passage 
in  Job,  19  :  25  seq.,  beginning  with :  1  hnow  that  my  Redeemer 
liveth,  etc.  But  alas !  I  cannot  accede  to  their  exegesis.  On 
the  contrary,  I  think  it  can  be  shown  beyond  the  reach  of  fair 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  49 

j)hilological  contradiction,  that  the  passage  has  no  reference  to 
Christ,  Christianity,  or  the  linal  resurrection  of  the  body.  It  is  sim- 
ply the  dechiration  of  Job,  ready  to  faint  under  the  accusations 
of  his  friends,  (which  were  that  he  was  suffering  because  of  some 
peculiar  and  heinous  guilt)  ;  and  his  declaration  that  he  still  hoped 
in  God,  who  would  yet  appear  as  his  vindicator  (brr;).  He  trusted 
that  he  would,  at  some  future  period  ("(i"inx),  take  liis  stand  on 
earth,  (as  he  did,  see  in  chap,  xxxviii,  coming  in  the  whirlwind), 
and  rescue  him,  though  wasted  away  to  a  skeleton-state,  (^'nbs^)  ; 
so  that  he  should  still  see  him,  when  restored  to  a  state  of  renewed 
strengtli  and  health.  "  1  shall  see  him,''  exclaims  he,  "/or  mi/self, 
with  my  own  ei/es  behold  him  ;  but  not  a  stranger  or  enemy''  [shall 
behold  him].  That  is,  I  shall  see  him  on  my  side,  taking  my  part; 
but  these  my  accusers,  who  act  like  strangers  or  enemies  to  me, 
shall  not  see  him  taking  their  part.  Such  was  the  fact ;  see  38 1 
1  seq.,  and  compare  42 :  7.  But  if  this  alleged  resurrection  of 
Job  means  the  final  resurrection,  how  shall  we  solve  the  nodus, 
which  is  presented  by  the  allegation  that  Job  loill  see  him,  but  not 
his  accusers  ?  Were  they,  then,  to  have  no  part  in  the  resurrec- 
tion ?  Other  insuperable  difficulties  might  be  urged  against  this 
view  of  the  passage ;  but  I  am  digressing.  Yet  not  altogether 
so,  for  it  was  incumbent  on  me  to  sustain  my  allegation  relative 
to  the  proportional  mention  of,  or  reference  to,  the  future,  in  the 
two  books  before  us.  Indeed,  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  no  book 
in  the  Old  Testament  has  so  many  references  to  the  retribution 
and  judgment,  at  a  future  period,  as  that  of  Coheleth.  For  proof 
of  this,  I  refer  to  the  view^s  given  above. 

In  respect  to  God,  there  is  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  inculcates  more  thoroughly  the  fear  of  him,  reverence  for 
him,  his  supremacy,  and  his  sovereign  right  to  order  all  things 
and  direct  all  concerns.  In  what  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
there  more  spirituality  as  to  worshipping  him  inculcated,  or  the 
fear  of  offending  more  emphatically  enjoined?  See  4: 17 — 5  :  6 
(5  :  1 — 7),  and  other  passages  quoted  on  page  30  seq.  above. 
There  is,  indeed,  in  tlie  Psalms,  more  of  adoration  and  praise,, 
and  thanksgiving,  and  confession,  and  supplication  ;  and  all  this  for 
the  obvious  reason,  that  the  Psalms  are  composed  for  this  very- 
purpose,  and  of  course  are  made  up  of  such  matter.  But  even 
in  the  Psalms,  numerous  as  they  are,  there   are  not  so  many 

5 


50  §  2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN    AND 

passages  concerning  future  retribution,  as  in  this  book;  nor  is. 
the  character  of  God  set  forth,  and  his  claims  vindicated,  with  a 
stronger  hand.  But  if  we  go  to  the  Pentateuch,  the  great  work  of 
the  Jewish  lawgiver,  we  find  scarcely  a  trace  o^  futurity,  except- 
ing what  rests  on  mere  implication  or  inference.  How  came  it, 
that  Moses  did  not  present  to  the  rebellious  and  idolatrously 
inclined  Jews  of  his  time,  the  awful  terrors  of  the  world  to  come  ? 
Yet  in  that  solemn  chapter  on  blessings  for  obedience,  —  that 
fearful  chapter  on  curses  for  disobedience,  (written  at  the  close 
of  Moses'  life,  Deut.  xxviii),  the  blessings  consist  of  abundance 
as  to  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life,  protection  from  enemies 
and  superiority  over  them,  and  increase  in  numbers  with  great 
renown.  Even  "  the  first  commandment  with  promise,"  in  the 
Mosaic  law,  offers  no  better  promise  than  protracted  length  of 
days  in  the  goodly  land.  On  the  other  hand,  the  curses  are 
drought,  famine,  pestilence,  and  various  other  diseases,  loss  of 
children  and  of  property,  slavish  subjection  to  foreign  nations, 
and  finally,  exile  in  a  foreign  land.  Why  did  Moses  stop  here  ? 
Why  not  hold  up  before  that  perverse  generation  all  the  terrors 
of  the  future  world  of  woe,  and  all  the  allurements  of  the  world  of 
peace  and  joy?  Can  any  one  give  any  other  reason  for  this, 
than  that  which  has  already  been  suggested  above,  viz.,  that 
under  the  ancient  dispensation  there  was  but  the  dawning  of  the 
day  which  was  to  come  ?  Life  and  immortality  were  to  be  brought 
fully  to  light,  only  by  him  who  is  the  Light  of  the  ivorld.  "  No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  Neither  Moses,  nor  the  prophets, 
lived  under  any  more  light  than  shines  in  the  dawn  of  revelation. 
What  God  had  not  yet  revealed,  they  could  not  fully  disclose.  At 
all  events,  they  have  not  fully  disclosed  any  more  than  some  of 
the  first  elements  of  future  things ;  and  even  their  hints  respect- 
ing these,  are  few  and  far  between.  Readers  of  our  day  find  much 
of  a  future  world  in  the  Old  Testament  only  by  carrying  back, 
to  the  interpretation  of  it,  what  they  have  learned  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  only  proper  question  is  simply :  What  did  the 
Old  Testament,  interpreted  without  the  aid  of  the  New,  fairly  dis- 
close to  the  Jews  ? 

When  this  question  is  asked,  I  venture  to  assert,  without  the 
fear  of  being  reasonably  contradicted,  that  Coheleth  has  more 
often  alluded  to  future  retribution,  and  more  strongly  affirmed  it 


METHOD    OF   TUE    BOOK.  51 

than  any  other  writer  in  the  Old  Testament.  Can  any  one  find 
such  a  retribution  in  tlie  Pent.,  histories,  prophecies.  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  more  ot\cn,  or  more  plainly  than  here  ?  I  look  in  vain 
for  anything:  like  the  frequenn/  of  his  alkisions  to  an  adequate  ret- 
ribution, in  any  part  of  tlie  Hebrew  Scriptures,  of  the  same  length 
as  Coheleth.  Tiie  book  of  Job  most  of  all  resembles  that  of 
Ecclesiastes,  in  its  tJieme.  There,  the  friends  of  Job  warmly 
defend  the  idea  of  an  adequate  retribution  in  the  present  life. 
Sin  is  speedily  followed,  as  they  maintain,  by  condign  punish- 
ment. Job  as  warmly  denies  this ;  and  God  has  decided  that  he 
was  in  the  right,  42 :  7.  How  could  such  a  dispute  be  so  zeal- 
ously and  perseveriiigly  maintained,  in  case  the  subject  of  retri- 
bution had  been  fully  revealed  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures?  I  trust 
the  answer  to  this  will  not  be,  that  the  book  of  Job  was  written 
before  the  other  Scriptures.  When  brought  to  the  tribunal  of 
impartial  criticism,  this  assertion,  as  nearly  all  now  concede, 
cannot  well  stand  the  test.  The  composition  bears  evident  marks 
of  a  time  nearly  synchronous  with  that  of  Coheleth.  The  same 
subject  is  discussed.  The  same  difficulties  and  objections  are 
urged.  But  Coheleth  takes  a  position  opposite  to  that  of  Job's 
friends ;  and,  while  conceding  the  point  of  imperfect  and  merely 
initiatory  retribution  in  the  present  world,  it  still  maintains  that 
it  is  to  be  confidently  expected  at  a  future  period.  One  is 
reminded,  at  every  step,  as  he  is  surveying  the  ground  of  Cohe- 
leth, of  the  kindred  feelings,  sentiments,  and  even  diction  in  the 
book  of  Job. 

Now  we  do  not  undertake  to  eject  the  book  of  Job  from  the 
Canon,  because  we  cannot  appeal  to  the  speeches  of  Job's  friends 
as  authorUij,  in  establishing  any  point  of  doctrine.  I  say  cannot 
appeal,  because,  as  God  himself  (42  :  7)  has  plainly  declared 
that  those  fiiends  had  "said  the  things  concerning  him  which 
were  not  rights'  it  follows  surely  that  M'e  cannot  now  appeal 
to  what  is  not  right,  in  order  to  establish  a  doctrine.  Many 
things,  indeed,  which  Job's  friends  said  were  true ;  but  the  truth 
rests  not  on  their  authority.  It  must  be  established  elsewhere 
and  by  other  means.  "We  do  not  receive  it  as  true,  because  they 
said  it,  but  because  experience  or  some  of  the  sacred  writings 
have  established  its  truth. 

Let  all  this,  so  plain  and  so  reasonable,  be  applied  now  to 


52  §  3.    UNITY    OF    THE    BOOK. 

Coheleth.  The  objections  to  the  great  truths  Avhich  he  declares, 
are  no  more  binding  on  us,  than  the  speeches  of  Job's  friends ;  or 
than  what  the  objector,  introduced  so  often  by  Paul,  declares  or 
suggests  in  opposition  to  the  apostle's  own  opinion.  This,  when 
thoi-oughly  considered  and  carried  out,  removes  most  of  the  diffi- 
culties in  Coheleth,  and  places  him  in  the  rank  of  those,  who,  in 
ancient  times,  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  future  retribution,  gave 
precepts  in  accordance  with  this  truth,  and  disclosed  sublime  and 
Yivid  conceptions  of  the  holiness,  the  power,  the  sovereignty,  the 
wisdom,  and  the  goodness  of  God.  The  question,  why  he  did 
not  more  explicitly  urge  the  great  spiritual  truths  to  which  I 
have  alluded,  is  one  that  justice  to  him  requires  us  to  ask 
respecting  all  the  other  sacred  writers  of  the  0.  Test.  And  if 
we  do  ask  it,  the  answer  is  plain.  In  this  state  of  things,  then, 
we  are  permitted  to  repeat  again  the  question,  which  has  been 
asked  before,  viz.,  Why  should  more  be  demanded  of  Coheleth, 
than  of  any  other  Old  Testament  writer  ? 

In  canvassing  the  question  respectirg  the  design  of  the  book, 
and  showing  that  it  was  neither  to  teach  Epicureanism  nor  Shep- 
ticism,  I  have  taken  a  wider  range  than  I  had  at  first  intended. 
The  questions  of  interest,  more  or  less  connected  with  the  lead- 
ing theme  here,  demanded  discussion  somewhere ;  and  although 
rigid  regard  to  order  might  have  placed  some  of  them  under 
another  category,  no  special  advantage  to  the  discussion  of  them 
<could  be  gained  by  transferring  them  thither.  Liberally  inter- 
preted, my  category  is  ample  enough  to  comprise  them  all. 

The  general  nature  of  the  work  ;  the  design  of  it  as  manifested 
by  the  principal  theme,  and  by  the  various  topics  of  discussion  ;  the 
method  in  which  the  writer  has  pursued  the  attainment  of  his 
object,  as  developed  first  in  the  respective  parts  of  the  book  and 
then  in  the  modes  of  representation  and  discussion  ;  —  all  these 
have  now  been  developed  with  sufficient  copiousness.  We  may 
proceed,  then,  to  other  subjects  of  interest  that  yet  remain  to  be 
"discussed. 

§  3.    Unify  of  the  Bool. 

After  all  that  has  been  said  above  in  developing  the  design 
and  method  of  the  book,  little  need  be  said  under  the  present 
category.     Its  nnity  is  manifest  from  the  fi\ct,  that  the  book  has 


§  3.     UNITY    OF   THE    BOOK.  5$ 

a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an  end,  all  consentaneous  ;  as  has  been 
fully  shown  above.  It  is  manifest  from  the  fact,  that  the  great 
theme  —  all  is  vanity  —  is  repeated  some  twenty-three  times 
in  different  portions  of  the  book;  which  shows,  beyond  any 
reasonable  doubt,  that  the  same  writer  who  ju'oposed  the  theme, 
has  carried  on  the  discussion  of  it  tlirough  the  work.  It  is 
granted,  tliat  there  are  some  digressions.  Yet,  when  strictly 
examined,  they  are  found  to  be  very  few.  The  sententious 
consists  mainly  of  precept;  the  apotheymatic  (which  really  con- 
stitutes but  a  very  minute  portion  of  the  work),  is  introduced 
not  for  its  own  sake,  as  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  but  only  for  the 
sake  of  comparison  and  illustration.  But  wherever  sententious 
precept  or  apothegm  is  introduced,  they  are  speedily  dismissed, 
and  there  is  a  return  to  the  consideration  of  some  one  of  the 
vanities  of  human  plans  and  efforts,  which  is  presented  in  a  new 
attitude.  There  is  not  a  book  in  all  the  Old  Testament,  unless 
it  be  the  book  of  Daniel,  which  is  more  firmly  compacted 
together  in  its  principal  framework,  nor  one  which  keeps  more 
steadily  in  view  the  great  object  which  is  designed  to  be  accom- 
plished. All  this  renders  it  utterly  improbable,  that  the  works 
of  different  authors  are  here  joined  together.  We  can  reasonably 
expect  such  an  arrangement,  only  from  the  hand  of  one  and  the 
same  author. 

To  him  who  can  read  and  duly  appreciate  the  oriyinal  Hebrew, 
nothing  can  be  said  that  will  convince  him  of  a  diversity  of 
authorship.  First  of  all,  the  language  or  diction  is  so  strikingly 
sui  generis,  that  no  other  book  in  the  Old  Test,  approaches  near 
to  it.  There  is  plainly  a  peculiarity  —  a  something  to  he  felt, 
however,  rather  than  described  —  which  runs  through  the  book 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  No  careful  reader,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  can  possibly  doubt  of  this.  The  impress  of  the  writer  upon 
the  book  throughout,  is  nearly  or  quite  as  palpable  as  is  that  of 
Daniel  on  his  work  ;  and  it  would  be  diilicult  to  say  more  of  any 
book.  I  cannot  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  writing  is  Jis  strongly 
marked  tluoughout,  as  (for  example)  the  works  of  Thomas 
Carlyle  of  the  present  day.  I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  the 
peculiarity  of  it  is  as  revolting  to  simple  and  refined  taste  as  his  ; 
for  this  I  do  not  believe  and  cannot  admit.     But  the  modes  of 


54  §  3.     UNITY    OF    THE   BOOK. 

expression  in  Coheleth,  and  the  diction,  and  the  distinctive  kinds 
of  development  which  he  employs,  are  altogether  as  different 
and  as  segregating  from  others,  as  are  those  of  Carlyle.  There 
arises  a  feeling^  in  every  one  who  reads  Coheleth  with  a  power 
of  nice  critical  discernment,  which  makes  it  all  but  absolutely 
certain,  that  one  and  the  same  hand  penned  down  the  whole  book. 
Almost  without  exception  this  is  now  conceded  among  critics. 

Time  has  been,  however,  when  there  were  various  theories  on 
this  subject.  Paulus  maintained,  that  the  book  exhibits  what 
passed  in  a  discussion  of  a  Literary  Society  of  the  writer's  day, 
of  which  he  was  a  member.  Nachtigal,  as  we  have  seen,  endeav- 
ored to  show,  that  the  book  consists  of  rival  poems  derived  from 
different  schools  of  the  prophets,  which  are  strung  together  like 
Wolf  and  Heyne's  different  rhapsodies  of  various  poets,  eking 
out  one  Iliad  at  last.  But  first,  we  know  nothing  of  such  literary 
discussions  among  the  prophets.  Secondly,  the  book  is  not 
poetry.  Lastly,  the  several  parts  are  not  put  together  without 
*order  and  sequency.  —  Others  have  maintained  the  mere  frag- 
meniary  state  of  the  book,  —  fragments  joined  together  by  some 
unknown  hand.  Staudlin  maintained,  that  the  book  first  con- 
sisted of  various  rough  sketches  of  Solomon,  which  were  subse- 
quently brought  together,  filled  up,  and  then  some  junction- 
links  added.  Others  have  given  it  out  as  a  mere  mass  of  aplior- 
isms,  brought  together  from  all  quarters,  like  the  book  of  Prov- 
erbs, and  thrown  under  one  category  for  the  sake  of  mere  con- 
venience. 

Few  books  have  been  the  subjects  of  more  discrepant,  and  in 
many  respects  wild,  conjectures  than  this.  Li  point  of  extrava- 
gance and  improbability.  Kaiser  and  Nachtigal  may  deservedly 
claim  the  preeminence;  and  even  such  a  preeminence  is  not 
destitute  of  attractions  for  some.  The  sober  inquirer  has  reason 
to  be  thankful,  that  a  better  day  has  dawned  on  philological 
pursuits. 

It  would  be  useless  to  pursue,  at  any  greater  lengtli,  the 
question  in  respect  to  the  unity  of  the  book  before  us.  The 
general  and  particular  grounds  for  admitting  this  have  been 
briefly  stated  ;  and  we  need  not  urge  the  proof  of  a  proposition, 
\which  no  good  Hebrew  scholar  now  ventures  to  call  in  question. 


§  4.    DICTION    OF    THE   BOOK.  55^ 

§  4.   Diction  of  the  Book. 

Long  ago  Luther  remarked,  that  "  this  book  has  singularem 
quandam  phrusin,  quae  a  communis  Unquae  usu  saepe  recedit,  et  a 
nostra  consududinc  valde  alieiui  est."  This  is  entirely  eorreet 
and  true,  as  to  dietion  and  i)eeulianty  of  phraseology.  One 
reason  doubtless  is,  that  the  book  is  of  a  diU'erent  tenor  from  any 
other  one  in  the  Old  Testament.  Where  else  is  there  a  book 
oi' philosophizing  ?  And  would  not  this  bring  with  it,  of  necessity, 
some  new  terminology  and  new  words,  just  as  it  does  with  us? 
As  to  the  younger  books  of  the  O.  Test.,  (such  as  Dan.,  Ezra, 
Neh.,  P2sth.),  they  have  themes  entirely  discrepant  from  those 
in  Coheleth,  but  still  present  many  words  belonging  only  to 
the  later  Hebrew,  and  therefore  common  to  them  and  Coheleth. 
Many  a  phrase,  however,  in  the  latter,  api)ears  nowhere  else ; 
and  many  phrases  and  words  here,  which  do  appear  elsewhere, 
have  a  sense  different  from  that  in  other  books. 

The  formulas  of  phraseology  first  claim  our  attention.  Not  a 
few  of  these  take  their  rise  from  the  course  of  thought  and  inquiry. 
A  large  portion  of  the  book  is  occupied  with  giving  the  results  of 
the  author's  own  experience  and  trials.  To  designate  this,  he 
commences  with  niX")'? "ri"^;s  ,  1  turned  myself  to  see,  2 :  IL  But 
oftener  still  he  says  simply  :  ''r}"'5<'7  ,  I  perceived,  1:  14.  3  :  10.  4  : 
4.  5:12.  C:  1.  7:15.  8:9,  10,'l8.  9:13.  10:7.  Again  he 
says :  n^'jb  "'r?"'^!? ,  I  turned  myself  in  order  to  know,  7  :  25.  2  :  20. 
When  he  speaks  of  continued  or  repeated  investigation,  he  varies 
the  phraseology  somewhat  ;  as,  nx-jxi  ^V\Zfq ,  again  I  saw,  or, 
iri'^xn  Tr,  1  further  considered,  3:1G.  4:1,  7.  9:11.  With  a 
slightly  different  meaning  still,  he  says :  "^sb-px  '^nrs ,  /  directed 
or  gave  my  mind,  viz.  to  the  consideration  of  this  or  that,  9:1. 

In  order  to  designate  the  thoughts  produced  in  his  mind  by 
experiment  or  reflective  contemplation,  he  says  :  "^sb^  Ti'^rx  ,  / 
said  to  myself  or  in  my  mind,  i.  e.  I  thought,  3  :  17,  18,  comp.  2 : 
I.  8:  14.  9  :  16.  With  the  same  meaning  he  employs  "^2^3  "nna"! 
or  'lab  ny,  1:16.  2:  15.  In  expressing  a  definite  sentiment,  to 
which  he  had  come  by  experience,  he  says  :  '^r'^X'^  ,  Isaiv,  2:13, 
24.  3  :  22.  5  :  17.  8  :  17.  He  also  employs  Tr"!:',  J  kncic\  1:  17. 
2:24.  3:  12,14;  and  sometimes  "^rxri-a  ,  1  found,  7:  27,  29, 
comp.  3:11.  7  :  14.  8  :  17. 


56  §  4.   DICTION    OF    THE    BOOK. 

Next  as  to  the  objects  of  consideration  or  examination.  The 
generic  phraseology  (used  as  it  were  adjectively)  for  designating 
sublunary,  earthly,  human  things,  is  that  they  are  T-'^s'i'n  rTT\ ,  un- 
der the  sun,  1:  14.  2 :  11,  17,  18,  19,  20,  22.  3  :  16.  4  :'l,  3,  7, 15. 
5:12,17.  G:l,12.  8:  9,15,17.  9:3,  6,9,11,13.  10:5.  Some- 
times, instead  of  this,  we  have  a-^^^'n  rnn,  under  heaven,  1:3.  3  : 
1.    Once  more,  simply  f"ixrj  Vj  ,  on  earth,  8  :  14, 16. 

Things  or  objects  themselves  are  called  "i^-i  or  diis^i ,  i.  e.  thing 
or  things  in  the  secondary  sense  of  these  words  (see  Lex.),  1:  8, 
10.  6:11.  7:8.  8  :  1,  3,  5.  The  meaning  comprises  both  actions 
and  events.  When  events  are  meant,  the  verb  rm  is  connected 
with  nn'n ,  and  then  the  phrase  means  thing  that  has  happened, 
occurred,  or  taken  place,  1:  9.  3  :  22.  6 :  12.  8 :  7.  10  :  14.  11:  2. 
When  actions  are  spoken  of,  then  the  verb  nbri ,  done,  performed, 
is  employed;  1:9, 13, 14.  2:17.  4:3.  8:14,16.  9:3,6.  The  ac- 
tive form  of  the  verb  nir:^  is  connected  with  the  agent  who  does,  2: 
3.  3:9.  8:10.  Hence  the  participial  nouns,  nb"'? ,  n-ibr^ ,  are  the 
predominant  designations  of  actions  themselves,  1:  14.  2:  17,  22. 
3  :  17.  4 :  3,  4.  8  :  9,  14.  9  :  7,  10.  But  sometimes,  in  order  to 
designate  what  we  appropriately  call  business,  the  word  ]^En  is 
used,  3  :  1,  17.  5:7.  8:6.  This  seems  to  be  of  later  usage,  as 
employed  in  this  sense.  In  a  like  sense  is  "{^^'J  employed,  but  it 
verges  on  the  meaning  of  disagreeable  or  unfortunate  business,  as 
in  1: 13.  2  :  23,  26.  3:10.  4:8.  5  :  2,  13.  8:16.  More  often 
occurs  the  word  h^zii^ ,  w^hich  properly  means  toil,  wearisome  labor, 
1:3.  2:  10,11,18,^20,21,22,24.  3:13.  4:4,6,8.  5:14,17,18. 
6  :  7.  8:  15.  9  :  9.  In  like  manner,  the  verb  h'q'J  and  the  parti- 
cipial h^q-J  are  employed,  meaning  to  perform  toil,  etc. 

The  result  of  toil  and  effort  is  sometimes  called  lab ,  reward  or 
advantage,  4:9.  9:5;  at  others,  pbn ,  portion,  part,  as  the  result 
of  labor,  2 :  10,  21.  3  :  22.  5  :  17,  18.  9:9;  but  finally,  more 
often  than  any  other  word,  does  he  employ  '(iin*] ,  advantage, profit, 
avail,  1:3.  2:11.  3:9.  5:8,  15.  10 :  10,  IL  As  to  all  efforts 
which  fail  to  yield  solid  profit,  he  calls  them  irn  ^\^^'^ ,  nn  ^i-^r^ , 
lit.  a  luindy  affair,  i.  e.  a  fruitless  business. 

The  destiny,  or  appointed  lot,  of  man  he  names  n")p^,  a  deri- 
vate  of  T\'y^ ,  to  happen,  2  :  14, 15.  3:19.  9  :  2,  3, 11.  Sometimes 
he  names  it  "aQ ,  occurrence,  8  :  14.  Evil  destiny  he  calls  5?'n,  ny'n, 
evil,  misfortune,  2 -.21.  6:1.  8:  6.  9:3.  10:5.  11:2,10.  12:'!. 


§    1.    DICTION    OF   THE    BOOK.  57 

Sometimes  it  is  nh'.n  ny-^ ,  a  f/n'evous  evil,  o  :  12,  15  ;  or  "n  "^bn  , 
of  the  same  meaning,  G:  2. 

All  the  efforts  and  occurrences  of  life,  taken  together,  he  calls 
^2n,  when  he  characterizes  them,  i.e.  notldngncss,  vanity;  and 
this  he  does  some  twenty-five  times  in  the  book  ;  see  on  p.l  1  above. 
Enjoyment  or  happiness  he  now  calls  nn"?b  ,  2  :  1,  2,  10.  7:4.  8  : 
15;  and  then  ni'j  or  nz-J,  2:1,24.  4':'8.  5:10,17.  6:3,6.  7: 
14.  To  enjoy  (jood,  is  3^::  nxn ,  or  ns*:: ,  or  n'-^iss ,  2  :  24.  3  :  13. 
5:17.  2  :  1.  0  :  G.     Once,  :r^ rr::v  ,3:12. 

The  word  wisdom,  >'^'^r^ ,  i=5  sometimes  equivalent  to  intelli- 
gence, power  of  insight  ;  e.  g.  1:18.  7  :  23,  24.  8  :  17  ;  in  which 
case  it  can  hardly  be  distinguished  from  rr^.  But  usually  it 
denotes  practical  wisdom,  sagacity,  dexterity ;  as  in  2:  21,  26.  4: 
13.  7:19.  9  :  15,  IG,  18.  10:1,  10.  The  religious  use  of  it,  as  in 
Psalms  and  Proverbs,  is  unfrequent  and  only  indirect  here.  The 
op])Osite  of  this  is  r'bzc  ,  bro,  i.  e.  practical  folly,  manifested  in 
a  great  variety  of  ways,  and  assuming  a  variety  of  forms.  For 
example :  the  fool  exposes  his  folly,  10 :  3  :  knows  not  how  to 
demean  himself  in  the  relations  of  life,  6:8;  undertakes  things 
in  a  wrong  way,  2  :  13, 14.  10  :  2, 15  ;  gives  loose  to  paroxysms 
of  indignation,  7:9;  blusters  among  fools,  9:  17;  is  given  to 
prating,  10:  14;  utters  language  injurious  to  himself,  10  :  12  ; 
gives  up  himself  to  lawless  pleasure,  2:3.  7  :  4,  5,  6  ;  brings  him- 
self into  straits  by  idleness,  4:5;  breaks  his  vows,  5:3;  and 
the  like.     When  ivisdom  has  a  relation  to  morcd  deportment  (7  : 

16.  9:1  seq.),  it  of  course  resembles  the  religious  wisdom  (n-crn) 
of  other  books.  It  is  so  with  the  opposite  word,  r^zr:i ,  i.  e.  this 
has  sometimes  the  sense  of  immorality  ;  see  7:7,  17,  25.  An 
equivalent  of  rrczn  is  I'ia'rn ,  consideration,  calculation,  7  :  25. 
9:10;  and  the  opposite  of  this  is  r^ibVn,  1:17.  2:12.  7:15.  9: 
3.  10:  13.  The  phrases  to  hiow  or  see  ivisdom  and  folly,  mean 
to  understand  and  explain  them  in  their  various  developments,  1  : 

17.  2:  12.  But  the  phrase,  the  heart  sees  ivisdom,  means  that  it  is 
itself  cognizant  of  it,  or  experiences  its  power. 

The  irork  f  God,  Coheleth  designates  in  a  variety  of  ways.  77ie 
omnipotent  and  immntahle  control  of  God  is  called  cribx?!  f^br^ , 
the  work  of  God,  7:13.  8:17.  11:5.  When  he  controls  the  actions 
and  destinies  of  men,  it  is  said  :i"^i'~x  *,r3 ,  i.  e.  lit.  God  gives,  puts, 


58  §  4.    DICTION    OF    THE   BOOK. 

OT  places,  1: 13.  2  :  26.  3  :  10.  5  :  17, 18.  6  :  2.  8  :  15.  9  :  9.  His 
kindness  is  nn^,  the  gift  of  God,  3 :  13.  5  :  18,  comp.  2  :  24. 

Many  of  the  above  words,  and  some  of  the  phrases,  are  else- 
where used,  but  rarely  in  such  a  sense  as  here.  The  reader  of 
Hebrew  in  the  other  books,  when  he  meets  such  phrases  here, 
feels  himself  to  be  treading  on  new  ground.  (1)  The  obvious  rea- 
son for  new  phraseology  and  new  meanings  of  words,  is  the  novel 
subject  of  which  the  writer  is  treating,  i.  e.  it  is  his  philosophizing 
on  the  vanity  of  the  world.  He  was  at  liberty,  like  all  other 
writers,  to  choose  language  adapted  to  his  own  purpose.  We  see 
in  it  little  indeed  oi  technicality  ;  but  still  we  perceive,  that  we  are 
by  no  means  reading  the  common  Hebrew  of  the  other  books. 
But  it  would  be  far  from  candor  and  fairness,  to  accuse  Coheleth 
of  unacquaiutance  with  good  Hebrew  usage,  because  he  feels 
himself  constrained  to  employ  terms  and  phrases  not  elsewhere 
to  be  found.  Cuique  suivm.  It  is  his  right  to  choose  language 
adapted  to  the  nature  of  his  discussion.  But,  (2)  There  are  other 
peculiarities,  which  spring  not  of  necessity  from  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  but  belong  properly  to  the  peculiar  and  characteristic 
style  of  the  author.  There  is  a  'prolixity,  ov  frequency  of  repetition, 
in  a  part  of  the  phraseology,  particularly  such  a  part  as  marks 
transitions  of  any  kind.  Isaid  in  myself;  I  turned  to  see ;  I  saw  ; 
I  knew  ;  and  the  like  ;  are  repeated  beyond  any  example  in  the 
Scriptures  ;  and  repeated  where  our  present  method  of  writing 
would  readily  dispense  with  them.  This  is  often  done,  witiiout 
any  important  addition  to  the  general  meaning ;  and  is  therefore 
indicative  of  peculiarity.  Among  these  repetitions,  however,  we 
must  not  reckon  those  cases  in  which  repetition  is  emplo}ed 
merely  in  order  to  make  out  intensity  of  expression  ;  e.  g.  2  :  2,  6. 
3:  IG.  4:1.  9:  9,  etc. 

To  this  general  category,  moreover,  in  an  enlarged  sense,  belong 
nasLuy  pleonasms  of  expression,  such  as  the  following,  viz.  "^rx  be- 
fore verbs  in  the  first  person,  in  cases  where  no  emphasis  is 
required,  as  ''D^5  ^n-i^x ,  -dj<  -^n-iS"! ,  etc.  See  in  1: 1 G.  2:1,11,12, 
13,14, 15, 18,  20,  24  3:17,  18.  4:1,4,7.  5:17.  7:25.  8:15. 
9:16,  etal.  Pleonastic  are  such  expressions  as  ^z>'z  ?,rrx  u^rj, 
"  the  sea,  it  is  not  fall,"  1:  7  ;  "  to  their  posterity,  to  them  shall  be 
no  remembrance,"  1:11;    "  woe  to  him,  to  the  one,''  4:10;  ''he 


§  4.    DICTION    OF    THE    BOOK.  59 

shall  take   liold   on    h'un,  on  t^ie  07ip"  4:12.    The  like  3  :  18.  5: 

11,  al.  These,  indeed,  are  proper  Hebraisms  ;  but  iXm'w  frequency 
here  is  what  strikes  us.  The  discrepaney  between  the  number  of 
the  verb  and  its  subject,  in  2:  7  and  10:  lo,  al.,  is  an  unusual 
thin_l,^  althou^'h  certainly  not  without  p;irallel.  In  the  hortatory 
and  tlidaetic  parts  of  the  book,  re{)etitions  like  the  above  are  un- 
frequent.  Indeed,  tiie  conciseness  and  energy  of  expression  there, 
is  like  that  in  Proverbs  and  Job.   See  in  chaps,  vii,  x. 

Very  frequent,  unusually  so,  is  the  use  of  a  verb  and  its  conju- 
gate noun  ;  e.  g.  b^r  b^r  ,  1:3.  2:11,  18, 19,  20,  22.  5:17.  9  : 
9.  Sonrr-^  nu;r,l:'l4.  2:17.  3:11.  4:3.  8:9;  rinp^  n7;r,2: 
14  ;  "i"!?  "I"!? ,  5:3;  ';;':r  r:r ,  1: 13.  8  :  10.  This  is  genuine 
Hebraism,  but  it  is  unusually  frequent  here. 

Another  marked  peculiarity  here,  like  tliat  in  the  book  of 
Daniel,  is  the  frequent  use  of  tJie  participle  for  the  verb,  specially 
to  designate  present  or  continued  action  ;  as  srix ,  T\rP,  ^'^^' i  and 
thehke,  1:4,  6,  7.  2:  14,  19,  21.  3:  20.  4 :  5.  5 :  7,0.  G:'l2.  8: 

12,  14,  16.  9:5.  10  :  3,  19.  12:5,  ah  Often  sl  pronoun  is  joined 
with  such  participles,  thus  making  out  a  finite  verb,  as  ""psN^b, 
S<!:n  rr-T ,  etc. ;  as  1:5,7.  3:21.  4:8.  7:20.  8:12.  9:10.'  The 
participial  or  verbal  adjective  performs  the  same  office  ;  asb'ir'  X^.n, 
etc.,  2:18,  22.  3  :  9.  4:  2,  8.  6  :  2.  9 :  9.  A  negative  for  any 
of  these  forms,  is  made  by  ■,";i<  with  a  suff.  jironoun  of  the 
subject,  e.  g.  s";^"t>  "i^x,  thou  hnowest  not ;  1:7.  4:  17.  5:11.  6  : 
2.  8:  7,  13,  16.  9:  1,  2,5,  16.  11:5,  6. 

The  use  of  "J"^  to  indicate  the  simple  tJiere  is,  (like  the  French 
il  ya),is  beyond  precedent  as  to  frequency ;  e.  g.  1:  10.  2  :  13, 
21.  4:8.  5:  12.  6:  1,  11.  7:  15.  8:  6,  14.  9:4.  10:  5. 

The  personal  pronouns  are  employed  here,  with  peculiar  fre- 
quency in  a  sense  which  indicates  that  they  include  the  verb  n;^n, 
to  he;  and  often  beyond  example  elsewhere  as  to  frequency, 
they  designate  merely  and  simply  the  verb  of  existence  itself; 
e.  g.  x^n  dnr:  ht,  this  is  new,  1:  10.  The  real  shape  of  the  Ileb. 
is  thus:  As  to  this,  it  is  new ;  and  so  in  x-n  ti-n'rwX  rr"2  ht,  5: 
18,  et  al.  lut  in  r^':zr\  rrcna  cnr,  tliat  they  are  beasts,  we  cannot 
well  apply  the  same  solution,  for  the  last  pronoun  can  be  trans- 
lated only  by  are,  3:18.  And  thus,  in  the  one  or  the  other  of 
these  ways,  in  1:  5,  7.  2  :  1,  23,  24.  3 :  13,  15,  22.  4 :  2,  4,  8.  5 : 
5,  8,  17.  6  :  1,  2,  10.  7  :  2.  9  :  4,  13.  10  :  3,  ah     • 


60  §  4.     DICTION    OF    THE    BOOK. 

The  book  never  employs  the  common  intensive  I'x"^ ,  very, 
very  muck.  Instead  of  this,  it  commonly  and  very  frequently 
employs  the  Inf.  of  Hiph.  na'in  (lit.  midf.ijjUcando),  in  the 
adverbial  sense  of  much,  very  much,  (see  Heb.  Gramm.  §  98. 
2.  cZ),  as  1:  IG.  2:7.  5:6,11,  IG,  19.  G:  11.  7:  IG,  17.  9:  18. 
11:8.  In  a  like  sense,  the  participial  'nri'^  is  employed,  2:15. 
7 :  1 G.  The  opposite  negative  is  rrc^x^  'px ,  not  anything,  5  : 
13.  9  :  5. 

The  pronoun  TiJi;;: ,  specially  in  its  abridged  form  'r,  is  em- 
ployed in  a  greater  variety  of  ways  than  anywhere  else  in  the 
Scriptures;  e.  g.  (1)  That,  in  order  that;  3:  14.  G:  10.  7:  14. 
8  :  12,  14.  9:1,  5.  (2)  Because,  or  for  that ;  4  :  3,  9.  6:12.  8  : 
11,  12,  13,  15.  10:  15.  (3)  Provided  that,  if;  8:  12.  (4) 
When;  8:  16.  So  with  prepositions  before  the  pronoun;  as 
niaxa  or  irn,  because,  on  account  of  that,  2:16.  3:9.  7:2.  8  :  4. 
So  ndxs  and  d3,  when;  4:17.  5:3.  9:12.  10:3.  In  like 
manner,  "ndx^  and  ^r^a,  than  that,  than;  3  :  22.  5:4.  Like  to 
these  are  ^'^.^^y ,  until  that;  2:3;  "iri-;  ^''^"^ ,  loithout  which, 
etc.  This  is  explicable  on  the  ground  that  iwix  is  a  note  of 
relation  generally,  and  therefore  may  stand  between  sentences  or 
clauses  which  stand  related.  With  all  this,  the  use  of  ozi  in 
Hellenistic  Greek  may  be  well  compared. 

(3)  Coheleth  contains  very  much  which  belongs  to  the  later 
Hebrew.  From  this  are  to  be  distinguished,  (if  indeed  we  can 
make  the  distinction),  the  Chaldaisms  of  the  book,  or  (to  speak 
more  generically)  the  Aramaeisms.  The  allegations  often  made, 
in  regard  to  these,  and  made  even  by  such  a  critic  as  Knobel, 
are  somewhat  extravagant,  and  certainly  in  a  measure  un- 
grounded. Herzfeld  has,  with  great  acuteness,  gone  through 
the  list  of  Knobel,  and  made  much  abatement  from  it.  With 
him,  let  us  consider  — 

(I)  TiiK  LATKii  Hebrew  element.  Knobel  attaches  to  this 
category  the  following  words,  which  cannot  properly  be  put 
there ;  and  which,  for  convenience'  sake,  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes,  viz. :  (a)  Those  which  are  also  found  in  the  old  He- 
brew, but  which,  as  he  says,  have  in  Coheleth  a  new  sense  attached 
to  them  ;  viz.  *)^sn,  thiny,  affair,  3  :  1,  17.  5  :  17.  8 :  G.  But  this 
sense  is  not  new.  In  Pro  v.  31  :  13  is  the  same  meaning.  So 
T|i<'?'3 ,  priest,  5:5;  but  the  word  is  everywhere  used  in  the  old 


§  4.     DICTION    OF    THE    BOOK.  61 

Hebrew  in  a  sense  wliicli  well  fits  this  passage,  viz.  the  messenger 
of  God  who  tlechires  his  word,  and  the  meaning  priest  is  not 
necessary  in  Colieletli ;  and  so  too,  in  respect  to  this  word,  in 
Hag.  1:  13.  Mai.  2:7.  3:1.  — fr;;?*?  (five  times),  means  destiny ; 
but  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  is  occurrence;  and  in  this 
sense  we  find  it  in  Ruth  2:3.  —  '-['Z'J  ,  to  rise  up,  to  stand  forth,  8 : 
3,  he  says  is  new ;  but  the  answer  is,  that  the  verb  has  not  that 
sense  here,  for  it  means  to  continue  to  stand,  to  persevere,  which 
meaning  it  has  also  in  Josh.  10:  13.  1  Sam.  20:  38.  Ezek.  21: 
35.  —  Again,  "5nx2,  together,  11:  6  ;  but  we  have  the  same  word 
in  the  same  sense,  in  Is.  Go :  25,  which  at  all  events  is  not  written 
in  the  style  of  the  later  Hebrew  —  n^sr-bs,  altogether  as  5:  15  ; 
but  this  is  a  form  of  inte7isity  merely.  The  word  n'q'J  itself  is,  in 
the  like  sense  as  here,  an  ancient  one,  Ex.  25 :  27.  28 :  27.  — 
r^-y^  (Tj^a";  in  10:  18),  is  used  in  the  same  sense  as  the  old  word 
Tj^"2 ,  to  rot,  to  moulder  axcay ;  but  the  exchange  of  forms  in  verbs 
Agi7i  Vaf  and  Ayin  doubled  is  an  old  custom,  extant  in  many 
verbs  from  the  beginning  of  the  written  language.  Moreover, 
in  Job  24 :  24,  is  found  the  Hophal  of  this  form,  as  is  the  Kal  in 
Ps.  106 :  43.  —  The  plur,  noun  in  10 :  12,  i.  e.  nirsb ,  instead  of 
the  dual,  is  no  novelty,  as  Knobel  alleges ;  see  Ps.  45  :  3. 

The  numerous  nouns  in  Ecc.  which  end  in  nn-,  Knobel  sets  to 
the  account  of  the  younger  Hebrew,  not  venturing  to  call  this  Ghalda- 
ism,  because  the  ancient  Heb.  has  the  same  forms.  The  instances 
are  r'lbVn,  mb^,  T^zh-z,  r.^ibzp,  rsibzr,  r^r"),  r^-^nq,  r^ibBd. 
But  abundance  of  the  same  forms  are  in  the  older  Hebrew ;  e.  g. 
see  Gen.  1:36.  38:  14.  Ex.  8:19.  11:  2.  14:  25.  28:  22. 
Nam.  24:7.  32:14.  Deut.  24:1.  29:18.  Ps.  22:20.  110: 
3.  Prov.  3:8.  4:24.  9:13.  23:  29.  27:4.  Hos.  6:  11. 
Amos  1:6.  Is.  2:11.  12:5.  21:2.  21:  4.  Ilab.  3:  14,  al. 
The  only  difference  is  \i\  frequency ;  a  thing  which  belongs  to  the 
style  of  the  writer,  and  not  to  the  species  of  the  Hebrew. 

As  to  nouns  in  ',- ,  and  •,1  — ,  which  he  puts  to  the  account  of 
the  younger  Heb.,  they  abound  in  the  older.  Tliey  are  indeed 
unusually  frequent  in  Ecc. ;  e.  g.  1^3? ,  •|in::3 ,  Vti2t  ,  "TiDn ,  'p'^n^, 
"jii'rs,  "parn,  ')"3'in.  But  the  same  forms  are  found  in  Gem 
24:  53.  38  :  11.  Ex.  25  :  23.  Lev.  1  :  2.  Hos.  9  :  1.—  Gen. 
3:16.  13 :  18.  33  :  2.  35 :  8.  38  :  17.  40 :  5,  17.  41  :  36.  42 : 
19.  Ex.  12  :  14.  15  :  7.  16:  23.  21 :  30.  Num.  21 :  20.  25  :  4. 
6 


62  §  4.    DICTION    OF    THE    BOOK. 

Deut.  8:15.  15:4.  28:22,  Q5.  32:  10.  Judg.  3:  23.  8:  21. 
Hos.  9:11.  Is.  1 :  1.  8  :  1.  9  :  13.  22  :  13.  32  :  14.  25  :  5.  36  : 
4.47:9.  Prov.  1:22.  15:11.  26:26.  Ps.  32 :  4.  92:4; 
besides  many  proper  names  of  this  form,  as  "ji^as* ,  "lis'rn ,  "li^^in , 
etc.  And  there  are  many  more  such  forms,  besides  those  which 
are  here  produced. 

If  one  will  now  call  to  mind,  how  often  abstracts  are  required 
in  a  treatise  of  philosophy  like  the  present,  he  will  think  it  noth- 
ing strange,  and  no  special  proof  of  later  Hebrew,  that  such 
nouns  are  frequent  in  Coheleth.  There  are,  however,  only 
a  few  here,  that  are  not  elsewhere  found,  viz.  )'^yj ,  "li^on , 
■|inni ,  "i'l'is ,  "P'sain  (as  an  abstract)  "ji^r'n ,  r"'- ,  V^^^  •  1'^^® 
easy  and  obvious  formation  of  these  for  the  writer's  purpose, 
renders  it  difficult  for  us  to  establish  anything  from  them  in 
regard  to  the  age  of  such  forms.  The  use  of  them  depended, 
obviously  and  merely,  on  the  need  of  them  ;  for  the  form  is  alto- 
gether 7iormal  and  analogous. 

The  same  principle  will  apply  to  the  frequent  use  of  '*:3"^.}:^5n  inrtP} 
and  n';'"CTrn ,  scarcely  found  anywhere  else.  The  great  question 
in  Ecc.  is,  the  vanity  of  earthly  things.  An  adjective  from  ]'";]i<rt 
the  Heb.  has  not ;  and  to  make  the  so  often  necessary  sense  of 
earthly,  the  writer  had  to  betake  himself  to  circumlocution.  But 
the  Heb.  itself,  in  both  expressions,  is  old;  and  the  meaning 
here  is  not  new.  The  use  belongs  to  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
and  to  the  style  of  the  writer,  and  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  the  later 
Hebrew. 

The  plur.  Q^nha ,  for  the  Most  High,  in  5  :  7,  is  no  indication,  as  is 
asserted,  of  later  usage.  We  have  n-^dnp  for  the  Most  Holy,  in  Hos. 
12:1,  and  the  like  elsewhere.  So  '{2  y'^t\,  tvithout,  2  :  25,  does  not 
therefore  belong  to  the  Rabbinic  Hebrew,  (where  it  is  common), 
because  we  find  this  compound  form  of  the  word  nowhere  else  in 
the  Heb.  Scriptures.  We  have  h  y^>n  and  y^n-q  in  the  old  Heb. ; 
and  what  hindered  the  use  of  '^^  "in  ?  The  argumentum  a  silen- 
tio  proves  Httle  in  such  a  case.  —  And  the  like  may  be  said  of 
r\^^n':i  in  11 :  10,  which  is  employed  in  the  Mishna,  and  put  by 
Knobel  to  the  account  of  Rabhinism.  The  word  is  truly  poetical, 
normally  formed,  and  beautifully  applied.  Perhaps  Coheleth 
himself  first  coined  it.  But  it  is  so  exactly  analogous  to  the  mul- 
titude of  the  earlier  Heb.  words  which  have  the  same  form,  that 


§  4.    DICTIOX   OF    THE    BOOK.  63 

nothing  can  be  urgned  from  its  use,  as  to  tlie  lateness  of  the 
book. 

Knobel  sets  to  tlie  account  of  later  Hebrew,  the  usage  of  Ecc, 
in  rejecting  the  Iniperf.  witli  Vav  consecutive,  in  narration,  e.  g. 
in  chap,  ii,  which  gives  the  history  of  Coheleth's  experience. 
So  much  is  true,  viz.  that  only  the  later  Hebrew  neglects  this 
usage  ;  which  (by  the  way)  none  of  the  other  Semitic  dialects 
exhibit  at  all,  except  that  the  Arabic  in  one  case  only  has  some 
approach  to  it  in  the  shortened  Future.  But  still,  there  is  so 
very  little  of  historical  narrative  in  the  book,  that  much  cannot 
be  made  out  of  this.  The  Imperf  with  Vav  consecutive  is  alto- 
gether api)ro[)riate  to  the  historical,  and  not  being  needed  here, 
it  is  not  employed.  If  the  book  were  of  a  historical  nature,  then 
some  argument  might  be  adduced  from  this  peculiarity. 

Knobel  also  insists,  that  d,  so  often  used  for  ^rx,  is  Talmudic. 
But  the  freqiiency  alone  can  be  appealed  to  here  ;  for  the  use  of 
this  form  (r)  is  ancient;  see  Judg.  o  :  7.  6  :  17.  7  :  12.  8  :  26. 
Job  19:29.  In  Cant,  (of  uncertain  age)  it  occurs  32  times; 
and  in  the  Psalms,  17  times.  In  the  Talmud,  it  has  almost 
expelled  I'l'x ;  but  in  Coheleth,  it  is  used  68  times,  and  irx  89 
times.  We  have  better  evidence  still  of  its  antiquity.  Gesenius, 
in  his  Monumenta  Ling,  Phoenic,  (see  Hal.  Lit.  Zeit.  1837,  No. 
81),  thus  expresses  himself:  "The  Phenician  Remains  are 
more  kindred  to  the  later  than  to  the  earlier  Hebrew,  e.  g.  the 
relative  is  always  d  instead  of  irx  ;  an  important  circumstance  for 
the  history  of  the  Hebrew  language^  Truly  it  is  so  ;  for  the 
Phenician  Remains  can  have  come  only  from  the  earlier  era  of 
the  language.  I  acknowledge  that  it  is  ditficult,  in  reading  Cohe- 
leth, to  avoid  the  feeling  that  we  have  a  kind  of  Rabbinic  diction^ 
in  the  frequency  with  w^hich  we  meet  d  ;  and  yet  w'e  see,  that  in 
the  Phenician,  (a  daughter  of  the  older  Hebrew),  we  have  this 
abridged  form  even  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  other.  In  this 
predicament,  we  cannot  make  much  out  of  this  argument. 

We  have  then,  after  having  examined  Knobel's  list  of  the  later 
Hebrew  vords,  only  a  few  remaining.  Of  those  wiiich  will  best 
bear  the  test,  tliere  remain  -)-■"'  in  the  sense  of  more  than ;  'j^^, 
10  :  20,  found  elsewhere  only  in  Dan.  and  Chron. ;  "ra  ,8:10, 
elsewhere  only  in  Esth.  4:16;  br,  8  :  17,  compounded  of  b-'nrx 
but  even  this  is  found  only  in  Jonah  1 ;  7,  12 ;  nbs,  (j:Q.  4:  10,  a 


64  §  4.    DICTION    OF   THE    BOOK. 

compound  prep.,  like  the  later  ones,  elsewhere  only  in  Esth,  7:4; 
and  ^x,  woe!  4:  10.  10:  16,  frequent  in  the  Talmud  only.  To 
these,  noticed  by  Knobel,  some  more  are  added  by  Herzfeld,  viz., 
]s  1^-J,  2:  d,  to  stand  by  or  aid  one :  nr'i'a,  province,  2:8;  else- 
where only  in  Lam.,  Daniel,  Ezek.,  and  Neh. ;  ^'^2,  1 1 :  6,  ^o 
prosper,  instead  of  the  earlier  T\\'i,  elsewhere  only  in  Esth.  8 :  5. 
Perhaps  the  insertion  of  the  pronoun  i:^;  after  a  verb  in  the  1st 
pers.,  and  without  any  special  emphasis,  may  be  put  to  the  later 
usage  ;  for  this  is  rare  in  the  earlier  Hebrew. 

As  to  i<-}^,  followed  by  "^.DS^^  (instead  of  '^3^^),  in  4:  10.  10  : 
16,  and  put  by  Herzfeld  himself  to  the  later  Hebrew,  we  find  it 
in  1  Sam.  18  :  12  ;  D^-J>"'2,  5  :  1,  is  also  in  Ps.  109 :  8  ;  d^D=3, 
treasures,  5  :  18.  6  :  2,  is  found  in  Josh.  22 :  8  ;  and  as  to  rn':  in 
6 :  5.  4 :  6,  we  have  it  in  Is.  30 :  15.  These  must  therefore  be 
excepted  from  his  list. 

Taking  the  amount  of  what  is  left,  we  find  only  some  10  or  11 
cases,  which  may  fairly  be  brought  within  the  confines  of  later 
Hebrew.  And  even  as  to  these,  some  doubt  must  hang  over 
them.  It  cannot  for  a  moment  be  assumed,  that  the  present 
Hebrew  Scriptures  contain  all  the  stores  of  the  ancient  language. 
Very  many  words  it  must  have  had,  wdiich  are  not  here  employ- 
ed ;  and  many  also  it  employed  in  different  senses  from  those 
which  are  now  to  be  found.  Where  the  w^ords  are  normally  con- 
structed, and  where,  following  analogy,  they  might  have  been 
easily  constructed  and  readily  used  in  ancient  times,  although 
they  do  not  now  appear  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  we  can  hardly 
affirm  with  confidence  that  this  word  and  that  belong  only  to  the 
later  Hebrew.  The  case  of  d  for  "i'«;3x  in  the  Phenician,  (which 
is  surely  a  dialect  of  the  old  Hebrew),  is  full  of  instruction  and 
caution.  The  most  that  we  can  say  is,  that  we  find  this  word  and 
that  only  in  the  later  Hebrew  hooks.  Books  of  the  same  age  have 
nearly  the  same  idiom ;  and  from  this  general  principle  we  may 
draw  some  conclusion  as  to  the  time  when  Coheleth  was  written. 

II.  The  Chaldee  element.  To  this  Knobel  attributes  r^T, 
12:3.  But  Hebrew  derivates  of  this  root  are  found  in  Is.  28  :  19. 
Hab.  2:7;  so  that  the  word  must  be  Hebrew.  Again  0:3,  2  :  8, 
26.  3  :  5,  is  no  Chaldee  word ;  for  we  have  it  in  Is.  28  :  20.  Ps. 
33:  7.  147:  2.  —  -i-is,  11:  6.  10:  10,  is  not  Chaldee;  neither  is 
•p-ii^s  ;  for  we  have  ninds  in  Ps.  68  :  7,  and  ^id-^s  in  Prov.  31 :  19. 


§  4.    DICTION    OF    THE    BOOK.  65 

-jVr,  2  :  19.  5  :  IS.  G  :  2.  8:9,  is  also  Ileb.  as  ■J-'^'O,  Gen.  42  :  G 
shows.  —  So  •|i"'P'!'  must  be  called  Ileb. ;  for  we  have  n'nri'i  in 
Est.  29  :  13.  — nr"|"3  is  of  late  use,  but  is  not  Chaldee  ;  see  Lex. 
Also  "|2p*?,  4:  lo.  [):  15,  16,  is  Heb. ;  for  we  have  Heb.  forms 
from  the  root  in  Is.  40  :  20.  Deut.  8 :  9.  —  D^D=5 ,  5  :  18.  6  :  2,  is 
not  Clialdee  ;  for  we  find  it  in  Josh.  22  :  8.  —  rpD,  3:11.  7  :  2,  is 
found  also  in  Joel  2 :  20,  which  shows  it  to  be  Hebrew.  It  is 
difficult,  moreover,  to  see  why  Knobel  puts  D'nis,  2  :  5,  among  the 
Chaldaisms ;  for  it  is  found  in  Cant.  2:5;  and  at  most,  we  can- 
not tell  when  this  foreign  word  came  into  the  Hebrew.  It  is 
probably  of  Sanscrit  origin,  which  employs  paradesha,  in  a  like 
sense.  —  That  nn  n-r'n  and  nn  ',i"irn  may  be  Hebrew  and  not 
Chaldee,  is  shown  by  nn  nri  in  Hos.  12:2.  In  regard  to  the 
HehraicUy  of  t-^T\  and  rpi^n,  6 :  10,  see  Job  14 :  20.  15 :  24.  For 
iheform  of  the  latter,  see  -^r^  in  Gen.  42 :  6.  That  '32,  8 :  10,  is 
of  later  usage,  is  probable  ;  but  there  is  no  particular  evidence  of 
its  being  Chaldee.  — 'i^'H'S  is  as  little  Chaldee,  as  TJX"'^  in  Ex' 
32  :  33.  That  -,=0,  10  :  9,  is  Heb.,  see  Job  22  :  22!  34 :  9.  — 
D^ir  is  Chaldee  in  3  :  11,  only  in  case  we  interpret  it  as  meaning 
world.  But  as  this  exegesis  will  not  bear,  we  strike  it  from  the 
list.  See  the  remarks  on  3 :  11  in  the  Coram.  —  That  "nj^r,  uproot, 
is  not  Chaldee,  is  shown  by  Zeph.  2  :  4. 

As  to  forms;  Knobel  makes  X^n^,  11 :  3,  a  Chaldee  form;  but 
this  would  be  X";.?!;; .  It  is  an  apoc.  form,  like  ^nn"^^ ,  and  stands 
for  ^rr^  with  an  x  otiant.  And  so  is  x  otiant  in  x^in ,  x-in ,  etc. 
With  these  forms  the  verb  rr^n  stands  connected.  —  ^?n,  1  :  21, 
is  const,  of  ball,  and  no  more  Chaldee  than  b'n^  which  comes 
from  b'nr,  only  it  is  a  more  normal  const,  form.  —  c^nfiDin,  4:  14, 
Knob,  makes  to  be  Chaldaic,  because  he  supposes  it  to  be  = 
aii^Dxn  ;  but  this  probably  is  not  so,  (see  Comm.) ;  and  even  if 
it  were,  it  would  prove  nothing,  for  in  many  Hebrew  words  x  is 
dropped  in  the  writing.  Finally,  that  nns;  and  'j'lr,  4 :  2,  3,  are 
Chaldee,  is,  as  Herzfeld  says,  an  exegetical  hieroglyph;  for  no 
proof  is,  or  can  be  adduced. 

We  come,  then,  to  a  small  list  of  what  may  be  called  probable 

Chaldaisms  :  viz.    nns,  1 :  10,  al.  saepe  ;  p:j3  for   cease,  12  :  3  ; 

"i^Dn  ,1:15.  7:13.  12  :  9,  <o  jnake  straight  ;  ■j'-ris  ,10:8,  pit,  nn? , 

9  :  l,for  nr>T3;  oarB,  8:11;  -(-ct,  3:  1,  for  n:?  ;  and  lastly  sudi 

6*     " 


66  §  4.   DICTION    OF    THE   BOOK. 

Aramaean  forms  as  x:253,  7  :  26 ;  fi<rr-;  ,8:1;  X'j'n,  8:12.  9:18; 
S<S-i^ ,  lO :  4 ;  ^^:2^,  10  :  5,  are  probably  conformities  to  Chaldee  in 
respect  to  their  final  vowel.  —  dnn,  2:25,  and  ^^2,  9:  1,  are 
doubtful,  and  cannot  be  shown  to  be  Chaldaic. 

I  may  refer  the  reader  here  to  wliat  is  said  at  the  close  of  the 
list  of  later  Hehreiv.  It  is  impossible  to  prove,  that  more  or  less  of 
this  last  class  of  words  were  not  extant  in  the  older  Hebrew,  or 
that  they  are  not  normal  derivates  of  the  Hebrew.  But  this  last 
list  of  probable  Chaldaisms  is  small,  amounting  to  only  some 
eight  or  ten  words  at  most. 

I  am  much  indebted  to  Herzfeld  for  his  labors  on  both  parts  of 
this  list.  He  has  pursued  the  examination  with  a  diligence,  a 
discrimination,  and  an  accuracy,  that  are  worthy  of  all  commen- 
dation. 

The  general  result  is,  that  the  book,  for  so  short  a  one,  par- 
takes, after  all,  somewhat  largely  of  the  two  elements  of  later 
Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  at  least  of  what  we  are  forced  to  regard  as 
such.  That  its  style,  and  diction,  and  coloring  throughout,  re- 
semble most  of  all  the  later  books,  viz.,  Ezra,  Neh.,  Esth.,  and 
Daniel,  every  reader  familiar  with  these  books  must  feel.  That 
he  is  moving  in  an  element  greatly  diverse  from  that  of  the 
earlier  Hebrew,  becomes  a  matter  of  immediate  consciousness, 
when  one  reads  Coheleth.  This  is,  indeed,  no  objection  to  the 
book ;  for  the  later  Hebrew  may  convey  truth  as  well  and  as 
intelligibly  as  the  earlier.  We  need  not  call  the  dialect  Doric  or 
Boeotian ;  much  less  Yorkshire  or  Patois.  The  laws  of  grammar 
are,  for  the  most  part,  strictly  observed ;  the  forms  of  the  words 
are  normal ;  the  tenses  are  not  unskilfully  used,  but  the  contrary  ; 
and  as  little  anomaly  is  found,  on  the  whole,  as  in  most  of  the  later 
books.  In  the  use  of  the  particles  there  is  great  latitude,  specially 
in  respect  to  ■! ,  '^S ,  3  ,  b ,  and  the  conjunction  ^cx  (ir)  ;  and  in  this 
respect  the  style  resembles  that  of  the  other  late  books.  This  of 
itself  is  an  indication  of  an  advanced  state  of  the  language,  which 
must  always  be  changing. 

Having  been  through  the  preceding  investigations,  in  respect  to 
the  nature,  contents,  design,  form,  style,  and  diction  of  the  book, 
we  are  now  prepared  to  enter  upon  the  next  question,  in  which 
many  readers  will  feel  a  special  interest ;  viz. 


§  5.    "VVIIO    AVAS    THE    AUTUOR  ?  67 

§  5.    Who  iras  the  author? 

If  this  question  be  referred  to  the  decision  of  past  times,  then  is 
it  easily  answered.  One  and  all  of  the  older  writers  declare  for 
Solomon.  Tlie  tradition  in  the  Talmud  (Baba  Bath.  fol.  14.  15), 
that  Ilezekiah  and  his  Society  wrote  C^-PS  ,  wrote  out,  copied) 
Coheleth  and  some  other  books  ;  or  the  saying  of  Rabbi  Gedaliah, 
that  Isaiah  wrote  not  only  his  own  book,  but  Coheleth  and  some 
others  (Shalshel.  Ilakkab.  fol.  GG)  ;  make  nothing  against  the 
general  position,  because  nrs  ,  as  they  employ  it,  means  merely 
copied,  wrote  doion  or  wrote  out. 

So  far  as  I  know,  Grotius  was  the  first,  in  modem  times,  who 
raised  a  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  general  tradition  in  regard 
to  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes.  In  his  Comm.  he  says  :  "  Ego  tamen 
Salomonis  esse  non  puto,  sed  scriptum  serius  sub  illius  regis  tan- 
quam  poenitentia  ducti  nomine."  lie  then  goes  on  to  adduce,  as 
a  reason  for  this  opinion,  that  the  book  has  many  words  which 
can  be  found  only  in  Daniel.  Ezra,  and  the  Chaldee  Targumists. 
Hermann  Von  der  llardt,  in  an  Essay  on  Ecc,  endeavored  to 
sustain  tliis  view,  by  the  like  arguments.  Against  him  rose  up 
Huet,  Calov,  Witsius,  Carpzov,  ai^d  Van  der  Palm.  So,  also, 
most  of  the  older  critics,  S.  Schmidt,  Geier,  Le  Clerc,  Rambach, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  L.  Ewald,  Schelling,  etc.  On  the  other  hand, 
Grotius  found  many  ardent  defenders ;  such  as  Eichhorn,  Schmidt, 
Doderlein,  Bauer,  Augusti,  Bertholdt,  Umbreit,  De  AVette,  Ro- 
senmijller,  Gesenius,  Jahn,  Ewald,  llitzig,  Heiligstedt,  and  others. 
Of  late,  scarcely  an  advocate  of  the  old  tradition  has  appeared. 
When  we  have  reviewed  the  ground  occupied  by  the  question, 
we  shall  i)erhaps  deem  it  strange,  if  any  future  critic  should 
engage  in  such  an  undertaking. 

That  the  book  purports,  by  its  title,  to  be  the  words  of  Solomon, 
is  plain.  It  begins  thus  :  "  The  words  of  Coheleth,  the  son  of  Da- 
vid, king  in  Jerusalem.''  King  belongs,  here,  to  Coheleth,  as  being 
in  ai)position  with  it,  and  not  to  David,  whicli  merely  connects 
with  son.  Now  no  one  of  David's  sons  was  king  in  Jerusalem, 
excepting  Solomon.  Coheleth,  then,  was  Solomon  ;  and  Coheleth 
was  king.  So  v.  12  :  "  I,  Coheletli,  was  king  over  Israel  in  Jeru- 
salem." At  the  close  of  tlic  book,  Colielcth  again  speaks  of  him- 
self and  his  work.     In  12  :  9  he  says  that  he  wjts  a  crn,  i.  e.  a 


68  §  5.    WHO    WAS    THE   AUTHOR  ? 

Hakam  or  philosopher  in  the  ethical  sense,  and  that  "  he  sought 
out  and  arranged  many  d"'blL'? ,  which  contained  words  of  truth." 
But  no  reference  is  here  made  to  his  kingly  condition. 

•  For  the  meaning  of  the  word  Coheleth,  I  must  refer  the  reader 
to  the  Comm.  on  1:  1,  where  it  is  sufficiently  illustrated.  Although 
fern,  in  form,  it  is  masc.  in  sense,  as  the  masc.  verbs,  everywhere 
joined  with  it,  sufficiently  show.  It  is  like  our  titles  of  excellency, 
majesty,  grace,  highness,  etc.,  when  indicative  of  office,  honor,  or 
station.  So  Kaliph  in  Arabic  is  ms'^bs  ,  i.  e.  it  is  fem.  ;  and  the 
like  is  found  in  almost  every  language.  Preacher,  in  the  common 
sense  of  this  English  word,  Coheleth  was  not ;  for  the  name  im- 
ports nothing  more  than  that  he  addresses  assembled  men  (possibly 
including  the  idea  that  he  did  it)  in  the  hortative  strain  ;  at  least, 
this  is  very  frequent  in  the  book  before  us. 

AVas  it  the  design,  then,  of  the  writer  of  this  book,  to  declare 
himself  to  be  king  Solomon  ?  Or  does  he  introduce  Solomon  pur- 
posely upon  the  stage  as  an  agent,  and  give  us  what  he  might 
well  be  supposed  to  say  ?  In  other  words  :  Is  Solomon  an  actor 
only  in  the  book,  or  is  he  the  real  author  of  it  ? 

Great  difficulties  lie  in  the  way  of  the  last  assumption. 
(1)  Many  things  are  said  by  Coheleth,  which  show  that  Soloinon  is 
only  occasionally,  and  not  constantly  speaking.  He  says  in  1:  12, 
that  "  he  was  king  in  Jerusalem"  The  Praeterite  tense  here 
('^n'T;'!!  I  was)  refers,  of  course,  to  a  past  time,  and  it  conveys  the 
idea  that,  when  the  passage  was  written,  he  was  no  longer  king. 
But  Solomon  was  king  until  his  death,  and  could  therefore  never 
have  said :  '  I  was  king,  but  am  not  now.'  Then,  again,  how 
passing  strange  for  him,  as  Solomon,  to  tell  those  whom  he  was 
addressing,  that  he  was  king  in  Jerusalem !  Could  he  suppose 
that  they  needed  to  be  informed  of  this  ?  But  a  writer  in  times 
long  after  Solomon,  might  easily  shde  into  the  expression,  that 
Coheleth  had  been  king. 

In  1 : 1 G  he  says  :  "  I  acquired  more  wisdom  than  all  who  were 
in  Jerusalem  before  me."  Doubtless,  being  a  king,  he  compares 
himself  with  others  of  the  same  rank,  i.  e.  with  kings ;  and  how 
many  of  these  were  in  Jerusalem  before  Solomon  ?  One  only,  viz. 
David.  Who,  then,  constitute  the  all  ?  It  is  only  a  later  writer 
who  would  speak  thus  ;  and  even  such  an  one  could  so  speak  only 
by  omitting  any  special  reference  to  the  incongruity  seemingly 


§5.     WHO    WAS    THE    AUTHOR?  69 

apparent  in  the  declanition  as  at(ril)uted  to  Solomon.  The  sen- 
tence looks  like  that  of  some  writer  who  lived  after  there  had 
been  many  kin<i^s  at  Jerusalem.  Moreover,  in  the  mouth  of  Solo- 
mon himself,  this  would  wear  somewhat  of  the  air  of  self-magni- 
fyin<i^;  while  a  lat«'r  writer,  who  admired  Solomon,  would  naturally 
speak  thus  of  him.  In  like  maimer,  in  2  :.7,  i),  he  speaks  of  sur- 
passing, in  various  respects,  "  all  who  were  in  Jerusalem  before 
him."  But  in  the  respects  there  named,  only  kings  could  well  be 
brought  into  comparison  with  him  who  was  a  great  king  ;  and 
therefore  the  same  difliculty  arises  as  before. 

In  1:  IG.  2  :  0,  15,  ID  he  speaks  of  his  own  wisdom  ;  and  in  this 
he  tells  us  that  he  far  exceeded  all  others.  This  was  true,  indeed, 
of  Solomon ;  but  it  was  hardly  the  dictate  of  modest  wisdom  to 
speak  thus  of  himself.  A  later  writer  might  well  speak  thus  of 
him,  althongii  there  seems  to  be  some  little  incongruity  in  at- 
tributing the  words  to  him. 

If  4 :  8  could  be  shown  to  have  a  particular  personal  meaning, 
and  that  the  person  in  view  was  the  writer  of  the  book  himself,  it 
would  bring  before  us  a  striking  incongruity.  The  case  there 
supposed,  is  one  where  the  individual  has  neither  son  nor  brother. 
Solomon  had  both.  But  my  apprehension  of  that  text  is,  that  the 
case  in  question  is  merely  one  supposed,  for  the  sake  of  illustra- 
tion. But  in  4:14  a  case  is  stated,  where  it  is  difficult  to  avoid 
the  conclusion,  that  Solomon  and  Jeroboam  are  meant.  In  this 
case,  if  Solomon  be  the  writer,  then  he  speaks  of  himself  as  "an 
old  and  foolish  king,"  while  Jeroboam  is  "  the  wise  and  prosperous 
young  man."  This  would  sound  very  strangely  in  the  mouth  of 
Solomon. 

In  8 :  3,  an  adviser  is  introduced,  who  counsels  the  prudent 
course  of  obeying  the  king  in  everything.  This  would  not  be 
strange  for  a  king  to  say ;  but  when  one  clause  declares,  that  the 
prudent  individual  '  mus*t  not  hesitate  or  delay  even  in  respect 
to  a  wicked  command,^  it  would  seem  very  singular  to  find  Solo- 
mon thus  characterizing  his  own  commands.  Then,  again,  when 
the  writer  gxves  his  own  view  of  this  matter  of  unlimited  obe- 
dience, in  vs.  5,  6,  he  says,  that  such  indiscriminate  and  blind 
obedience  will  incur  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  bring  the  inevitable  judg- 
ment of  God  upon  him  who  yields  it,  vs.  7,  8.  All  this  is  hardly 
congruous  with  kingly  oi)inions. 


70  §  5.     WHO    WAS   THE    AUTHOR  ? 

In  5 :  7,  the  writer  speaks  of  "  the  oppressing  the  poor,  and  rob- 
bing him  of  justice."     In  3:16,  he  says  that  "in  the  place  of 
judgment  and  justice  was  wickedness."    In  4  : 1,  he  describes  him- 
self as  a  witness  "  of  oppressions  which  were  committed,  and  of 
the  tears  of  the  oppressed  who  had  no  comforter."     In  7  :  7,  he 
declares  that  "  oppression  is  making  even  a  wise  man  mad."     In 
7:10,  he  alludes  to   "  former  days  which  were  better  than  the 
present."     In  the  sequel  (v.  15),  he  speaks  of  "  the  righteous  man 
as  perishing  because  of  his  righteousness,  and  the  wicked  man  as 
prolonging  his  days  by  his  wickedness."     In  8:9  he  speaks  of 
"  one  man   ruling  over  another  to  his  injury."     In   10 :  4,  he 
describes  rulers  as  being  passionate  and  excessive  in  their  anger. 
In  10:5 — 7,  he  describes  the  ruler  as  'setting  fools  on   high, 
while  the  wealthy  and  princes  occupy  a  low  place,  and  act  as  ser- 
vants of  the  fools.'      In  10  :  16 — 19,  he  covertly  speaks  of  rulers 
as  gluttons,  drunkards,  and  sluggards  ;  and  even  in  blessing  such 
kings  as  are  of  an  opposite  character,  he  says  the  same  thing  in  the 
way  of  implication.    Can  we  now,  in  any  way,  suppose  all  these  to 
be  the  words  of  Solomon,  describing  himself  as  a  haughty,  violent, 
unjust,  tyrannical,  oppressor?     Was  he  a  glutton,  a  drunkard, 
and  an  idler,  — he  who  spake  3,000  proverbs,  wrote  1,005  songs, 
and  many  treatises  of  botany,  besides  managing  wisely  all  the 
affairs  of  his  kingdom  ?  1  K.  4 :  32  seq.     Did  he  permit  the  land 
to  be  full  of  oppressive  magistrates,  who  caught  at  bribes,  con- 
demned the  righteous,  and  acquitted  the  wicked  ?     Was  not  the 
power  in  his  own  hands,  to  remedy  all  this,  and  to  do  judgment 
and  justice  ?    And  yet   Coheleth  says,  in  4:2,  3,  that  death  is 
preferable  to  life,  under  the  then  existing  oppression.     Yea,  in  his 
impatience,  he  even  wishes  he  had  never  been  born.   And  all  this, 
when,  if  Solomon  be  concerned  in  the  matter,  it  was  at  any 
moment  in  his  power  to  put  a  stop  to  the  evils  complained  of ! 
How  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  Solomon  ascribes  all  this  great 
wickedness  and  folly  to  himself?   Let  any  one  read  the  history  of 
his  enlightened  and  peaceful  reign,  as  given  in  the  books  of  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  and  he  will  see  a  picture  directly  the  opposite  of 
all  this.     The  matter  of  Solomon's  authorship,  in  respect  to  such 
passages  seems  quite  impossible. 

(2)  The  general  state  and  condition  of  things,  ivhen  this  hook  icas 
written,  indicates  a  period  very  different  from  that  of  Solomon's 


§  5.     WHO    WAS    THE    AUTHOR  ?  71 

reign.  We  must  keep  in  view  here  what  has  ah'eady  been  said 
above,  respecting  the  cm/ condition  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  dread- 
ful oppression,  on  the  one  hand,  by  which  the  rigliteous  were  per- 
secuted and  destroyed,  and  the  favoritism,  on  the  other,  by  which 
the  wicked  were  exahed.  This,  of  itself,  is  strong  testimony 
against  the  royal  authorship.  But  beyond  this,  there  was  a  gen- 
eral gloom  that  overspread  all  ranks  and  conditions  in  life. 
Wliereverthe  writer  turns  his  eyes,  he  sees  little  excej)t  vexation 
and  disappointment  and  suffering.  So  dee})ly  are  all  these  things 
impressed  on  him,  that  even  the  joyous  youth  is  cautioned  by  him 
not  to  rely,  for  a  moment,  on  the  endurance  of  any  good.  The 
writer  is  indeed  very  far,  after  all,  from  being  a  gloomy  cynic. 
He  has  no  malevolent  or  embittered  feeling.  But  he  sees  before 
him,  on  all  sides,  innumerable  i)roofs  of  the  frailty,  the  vanity, 
and  uncertainty  of  human  life  and  human  endeavors  ;  and  also 
the  utter  impossibility  of  eff(ecting  any  substantial  change  for  the 
better.  He  comes  fully  to  the  conclusion,  that  "  the  day  of  one's 
death  is  better  than  the  day  of  his  birth."  7:1.  Does  all  this 
look  like  being  written  during  the  peaceful,  plentiful,  joyful  reign 
of  Solomon  ?  —  such  a  reign  as  the  Hebrews  never  saw  before 
or  since  ?  To  my  mind  this  seems  almost  impossible.  Every 
writer  is  influenced  by  the  things  around  him,  and  the  circum- 
stances in  which  he  is  placed.  So  far  as  we  know  from  O.  Test, 
history,  the  times  here  supposed  and  described  belong  not  to  the 
period  of  Solomon's  reign.  It  is  true  that  this  king,  in  his  old  age, 
was  guilty  of  backsliding,  and  that  he  was  chastised  for  it.  But 
as  to  tlie  state  of  his  kingdom  in  general,  it  seems  to  have  been  in 
a  condition  directly  opposite,  in  most  respects,  to  that  which  has 
been  described  above. 

The  passage  in  4:17,  speaks  in  such  a  way  respecting  temple- 
off'erings  and  services,  as  hardly  accords  with  the  views  given  in 
1  K.  3  :  3.  4:15.  8:5,  62—04.  10  :  5.  1 1:  7.  I  do  not  say,  that 
Solomon  had  views  in  substance  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Ecc.  4  : 
17  ;  but  that  the  methods  of  expression  there  adopted  seem 
foreign  to  the  condition  and  circumstances  of  him  who  had  built 
the  temple,  and  made  magnificent  preparations  for  offerings. 

The  peculiar  passage,  in  7  :  2G — 28,  respecting  the  extreme 
baseness  of  ivomen,  seems  hardly  consonant  witli  the  views  of  him 
who  had  700  wives  and  300  concubines,  1   K.  ll  :  1 — 8  ;    and 


72  §  5.    WHO   WAS    THE    AUTHOR  ? 

who  was  devoted,  as  it  would  seem,  more  than  any  other  Jewish 
king  known  to  us,  to  amatory  enjoyments.  Another  and  later 
writer,  who  looked  attentively  at  the  history  of  the  close  of  Solo- 
mon's life,  might  well  speak  of  such  women  as  were  in  Solomon's 
harem,  as  he  has  done.  Most  of  them  were  probably  of  heathen 
origin  ;  comp.  vs.  2 — 5. 

(3)  Another  source  of  doubt  os  to  the  authorship  of  Solomon 
springs  from  the  style  and  diction  of  the  booh 

Whoever  comes  from  an  attentive,  critical  reading  of  the  book 
of  Proverbs,  written  or  compiled  by  Solomon  for  the  most  part,  to 
that  of  Coheleth,  will  find  himself  in  a  region  entirely  new. 
William  of  Malmesbury  is  scarcely  more  diverse  from  Macaulay, 
or  Chaucer  from  Pope,  than  Coheleth  is  from  Proverbs.  It  is 
impossible  to  feel  that  one  is  in  the  hands  of  the  same  writer. 
The  subjects  are  exceedingly  diverse.  In  Proverbs,  incontinence, 
falsehood,  lying,  deceiving,  marriage,  parents  and  children,  educa- 
tion, neatness,  industry,  thrift,  and  the  like,  are  the  subjects 
treated  of;  in  Coheleth,  the  vanity  of  all  things,  the  nothingness 
of  human  ends  and  aims,  the  oppression  of  wicked  rulers,  and  the 
like,  are  the  theme  throughout.  Of  all  these,  there  is  scarcely 
anything  in  the  book  of  Proverbs.  However,  this  would  not 
prove  much,  if  it  stood  alone ;  for  the  same  writer  might  change 
his  theme.  But  when  we  come  to  the  coloring  of  the  style  and 
diction,  it  is  impossible  to  make  out  anything  but  the  widest 
diversity. 

We  have  seen  above,  how  much  of  the  later  Hebrew  and  of 
Chaldaism  there  is  in  Coheleth.  But  where  are  these  to  be  found, 
in  any  such  measure,  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  ?  Nowhere. 
Here  is  the  golden  Hebrew  of  the  golden  age.  But  in  the  dark 
and  distressing  times  of  Coheleth,  the  Hebrew  idiom  or  at  least 
the  diction  and  style,  had  greatly  changed.  A  mere  English  reader 
can,  indeed,  see  but  little  of  this  ;  for  all  the  ingredients  are 
melted  down  together  in  an  English  crucible.  But  the  very  first 
paragraph  in  Coheleth  tells  a  Hebrew  reader,  that  he  has  come 
to  a  new  and  different  region.  This  is  a  thing,  however,  which 
can  only  he  felt  by  a  reader  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  ;  and  there- 
fore one  of  which  an  adequate  description  cannot  well  be  given. 

When  we  are  gravely  told,  that  this  change  of  style  is  to  be 
ascribed  to   Solomon's  intercourse  with  foreign  women,  we  may 


§  5.    "WHO    WAS   THE   AUTHOR  ?  73 

rather  smile,  tlian  feel  compelled  to  argue.  Would  Solomon,  in 
his  old  age,  be  likely  to  change  his  mother-tongue?  Had  he 
respect  enough  for  his  women,  to  become  a  learner  of  fcjrcign  lan- 
guages from  them  ?  Would  a  mere  momentary  casual  intercourse 
with  them,  such  as  his  was,  produce  such  an  influence  on  his 
idiom  ?  And  then,  who  can  tell,  \Yhether  the  idiom  of  any  of  these 
women  resembled  that  of  Coheleth  ?  Last  of  all  —  would  the 
Spirit  of  inspiration  move  Solomon  to  write  in  the  idiom  of  his 
heathen  concubines,  who  were  unlawfully  selected  ?  See  Ex.  34: 
15, 16.  In  whatever  way  we  look  at  this  matter  —  it  is  vanity  of 
vanities. 

At  all  events,  the  hook  of  Proverbs  stands  in  the  way  against 
ascribing  Coheleth  to  Solomon.  There  brevity,  precision,  com- 
pactness, and  energy  of  expression,  predominate.  But  if  we 
except  the  few  aphorisms  in  Coheleth,  and  the  precepts  here  and 
there  given,  the  mode  of  representation  is  the  reverse  of  this. 
Not  that  tliere  is  not  an  energy  running  through  the  whole  com- 
position of  the  latter,  but  that  the  repetitious  phrases  are  very 
numerous,  and  the  style  here  and  there  expansive  or  diluted. 
What  most  of  all  distinguishes  Coheleth  from  Proverbs  is,  that 
the  former  repeats,  beyond  all  example  in  the  Scriptures,  certain 
phrases  entirely  sui  generis,  which  never  occur  at  all  in  the  book 
of  Proverbs.  Such  are  under  the  sun,  under  heaven,  I  turned  to  see, 
I  said  in  my  heart,  and  the  like.  If  Solomon  w^rote  Coheleth, 
how  could  such  favorite  expressions,  every  wliere  introduced  in  this 
book,  have  never  a]ipeared  at  all  in  l*roverbs  ?  No  efforts  can 
remove,  or  even  diminish,  these  palpal)k'  discrepancies,  in  regard 
to  style  and  manner  between  the  two  books.  There  is  more 
diversity  than  exists  between  Isaiah  and  ^lalachi,  or  between  the 
narrations  in  Genesis  and  those  in  the  Chronicles.  Conciliation 
of  manner  is  indeed  out  of  the  question. 

Thus  far,  then,  we  have  made,  as  it  would  seem,  but  little 
progress  towards  discovering  the  author  of  the  book.  If  our  mode 
of  reasoning  and  drawing  conclusions  be  valid,  we  have  thus  far 
only  come  to  the  decision  that  Soiomo)i  icas  not  the  author.  Who 
then  was  he,  and  wJien  did  he  live  ? 

According  to  Hermann  Von  der  Ilardt,  he  was  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Jesus,  the  third  son  of  the  high-priest  Jehoiadah,  who 
lived  under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Long.,  Xerxes  II,  and  Darius 
7 


74  §  5.    WHO   WAS    THE    AUTHOR  ? 

Nothus,  (464—404  b.  c).  If  we  ask  for  proof  of  this,  none  is  or 
can  be  produced.  Proof  was  not  necessary  to  Yon  der  Hardt, 
and  lie  deals  very  little  in  it.  Kaiser  makes  Zerubbabel,  f\\mous 
in  the  annals  of  the  exiled  and  returning  Jews,  the  author  ;  and 
even  Grotius  intimates,  that  '  the  collection  of  the  miscellanies  [?] 
in  the  book  was  made  by  the  Scribes  under  his  order ;'  —  all, 
again,  without  any  proof. 

As  the  real  author  has  told  us,  at  the  close,  that  he  was  a  n:rt , 
(i.  e.  in  modern  Arabic,  a  Hakim  or  Ulema),  a  fidyogj  12:9,  who 
collected  and  compared,  and  arranged  d-Vc^  ,  and  has  spoken  of 
himself  only  by  an  official  designation,  viz.  Coheleth,  we  find 
nothing  in  the  book  that  leads  to  the  individual  and  proper  name 
of  the  writer.  We  may  give  up,  then,  our  pursuit  after  this,  and 
must  try  to  content  ourselves,  in  this  particular  case,  with  the 
simple  verdict  of  ignoramus. 

The  times  in  which  the  author  lived,  are  the  only  thing  now  left, 
by  which  we  may  find  some  traces  of  him.  The  nature  of  these 
has  been  amply  described  above.  They  were  times  of  kingly 
government ;  of  great  oppression  by  all  classes  of  the  magistracy ; 
of  luxury,  extravagance,  idleness,  and  debauchery  among  the 
upper  classes  ;  of  persecution  in  respect  to  the  righteous,  and  of 
promotion  and  prosperity  in  regard  to  the  wicked ;  times  in  which 
the  poor  and  the  just  were  reduced  to  despair,  so  that  life  became 
a  burden  ;  times  in  which  a  whisper  against  the  tyrants  of  the 
land  was  followed  by  severe  penalties  :  and,  in  a  word,  days  of 
darkness,  even  of  thick  and  impenetrable  gloom,  so  that  to  go  to 
the  house  of  mourning  was  preferable  to  attendance  on  a  feast, 
because  of  the  feeling  that  the  dead  had  escaped  from  the  mise- 
ries of  the  living.  So  much  lies  on  the  face  of  the  book,  and  is 
interwoven  with  its  very  texture.  But  when  was  there  such  times 
in  Judea  ?  We  might  be  inclined  to  answer  :  '  Under  Manasseh, 
who  reigned  fifty-five  years,  who  became  a  heathen  and  filled 
Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood,  2  K.  xxi.  All  the  evils  just 
mentioned  doubtless  may  have  existed  under  him.'  —  But  still,  it 
would  be  utterly  unaccountable,  that  not  a  word  should  be  said 
about  idolatry,  or  concerning  martyrdom.  Possibly,  however, 
such  a  passage  as  7:  15  might  occupy  the  ground  of  the  latter. 
But  inasmuch  as  no  reference  is  made  to  the  interruption  of  Leviti- 
cal  rites  and  temple-worship,  but  on  the  contrary  they  are  spoken 


§5.    AVIIO    WAS    THE    AUTHOR?  75 

of  as  being  an  ordinary  thing  (i: :  17  seq.),  it  is  diflicult  to  sup- 
pose the  writer,  (wliose  object  it  is  to  bring  together  the  various 
vanities  of  human  life  as  then  exhibited),  could  have  passed 
through  liis  whole  work  without  making  any  comi)laint  of  such 
things.  The  moderated  tone  in  which  the  author  sjx'aks  of  ritual 
wors/iip,  seems  to  indicate  a  period,  in  which  the  religious  Jews 
had  fallen  off  from  the  earlier  and  ardent  attachment  to  rites  and 
sacrifices.  The  spirit  of  the  day  when  Malachi  wrote  his  book, 
will  help  us  to  undei-stand  this ;  for  so  far  had  it  gone  from  high 
reganl  to  the  externals  of  worship,  that  the  prophet  felt  moved  to 
rebuke  the  Jews  for  "  robbing  God  of  his  offerings,"  Mai.  3  :  8  seq. 
Such  is  the  natural  effect  of  a  seventy  years'  exile,  when  ritual 
and  temple  worship  was  suspended.  Still,  so  long  as  the  Mosaic 
Law  was  acknowledged  as  the  constitution  of  the  state,  something 
must  be  done  in  this  way,  and  it  should  be  done  with  decorum  ; 
and  Malachi  finds  it  to  be  matter  of  reproof,  that  the  returned 
Jews  neglected  their  duty  in  this  respect.  His  design,  however, 
is  consistent  with  sucli  a  spirit  as  Coheleth  shows  ;  for  the  latter 
calls  neither  offerings  nor  vows,  as  such,  in  question,  but  cautions 
against  a  slight,  superficial,  merely  external,  and  hypocritical  per- 
formance of  such  duties.  He  has,  evidently,  an  enlightened  view 
of  the  spiritiialiff/  necessary  to  an  acceptable  performance  of  them. 
But  this,  of  itself,  will  not  decide  for  us  the  question  :  W/teii  did 
he  live  and  write  ?  For  some  Jews  in  every  age,  as  we  may  well 
suppose,  cherished  similar  sentiments. 

But  if  we  go  down  lower  than  the  time  of  ]Manasseh,  we  find, 
indeed,  tyrannical  kings,  and  a  distracted  state  of  the  common- 
wealth ;  l)ut  still  we  find  these  kings,  in  all  probability,  in  the 
practice  of  heathen  and  idolatrous  rites,  for  it  is  said  of  both 
Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah,  that  "  they  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord,"  which  more  usually  designates  the  practice  of  idolatry, 
as  enn)loyed  in  the  book  of  Kings.  After  this,  there  was  no  indige- 
nous king  in  Judea,  until  the  time  of  the  Hasmonean  family,  or 
the  age  of  Judas  Maccabaeus.  If  the  book  was  written  after  the 
exile,  it  must  have  been  under  the  reign  of  the  Persian  kings, 
and  before  the  (J reek  kings  of  Egypt  or  of  Syria  had  dominion 
over  Palestine.  Oppression  under  these  last-named  kings  did  not 
take  place  seriously,  until  about  the  time  when  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes  came  on  the  stage  of  action,  i.e.  17o  n.  c.      Oppression 


76  §  5.     WHO    WAS    THE   AUTHOR  ? 

under  the  Persian  kings  might  have  happened,  and  did  sometimes 
happen;  see  Ezra  3:5.  4:1 — 24.  Neh.  6:5 — 10,  especially 
Nell.  9 :  37.  After  Ezra  came  to  Palestine  (about  457  b.  c), 
the  Jews  were  generally,  but  not  always,  (see  texts  just  cited),  on 
a  good  footing  with  the  Persian  kings,  so  far  as  the  sacred  history 
carries  us,  i.  e.  down  to  some  434  b.  c.  It  would,  on  the  whole, 
seem  most  probable  that,  between  the  first  return  of  the  Jews 
from  exile  (535  b.  c.)  down  to  the  time  of  Ezra,  (about  80  years 
afterward),  is  the  period  most  likely  to  exhibit  the  phenomena 
which  we  have  brought  to  view  above.  The  neighbors  of  the 
Jews  gave  them  much  trouble,  often  misrepresented  them  to  the 
kings  of  Persia,  and  occasioned  them  many  grievances.  The 
governors  of  Judea  were  probably  corrupt  men,  under  those 
Persian  kings  who  troubled  the  Jews ;  and  a  state  of  things, 
such  as  the  book  before  us  brings  to  view,  might  easily  have  ex- 
isted through  their  management.  Persia,  moreover,  never  wor- 
shipped idols.  And  this  may  be  the  reason  why  Coheleth  never 
speaks  of  idolatry  as  the  vice  of  either  king  or  nobles. 

The  only  difficulty  in  the  case  seems  to  be,  that  the  king 
appears  to  be  spoken  of  as  if  he  were  a  proper  Jewish  king, 
belonging  to  the  country.  But  still  the  lines  are  not  drawn 
strictly  here.  The  fact,  that  the  province  (ni'^^^zfi  with  the 
article)  is  spoken  of  in  5 :  7,  fixvors  the  period  of  Persian  domi- 
nation at  the  time  when  the  book  was  written ;  for  Judea  was 
plainly  a  province  of  the  Persian  empire.  The  Jews  belonged 
to  Cyrus,  by  virtue  of  his  conquest  of  Babylonia,  where  they 
then  lived.  They  were  afterwards  treated  as  a  province  by  the 
Persian  kings,  as  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  abundantly 
testify.  The  difficulty  in  carrying  out  a  scheme  of  proof,  lies  in 
the  want  of  more  minute  historical  documents,  respecting  the 
period  in  question.  We  have  only  a  short  passage  in  Ezra, 
which  specially  refers  to  this  period  ;  and  this  is  occupied  mainly 
with  civil  troubles  and  embarrassments.  We  can  argue,  there- 
fore, only  from  analogy  draAvn  from  other  periods.  And  this 
will  easily  serve  to  convince  us,  that  matters  may  have  then  been 
in  the  dismal  state  which  Coheleth  so  vividly  describes.  The 
assertion  by  some  critics,  that  Ecc.  was  written  at  the  Macca- 
baean  period,  is  altogether  destitute  of  probability.  It  must 
needs  have  taken  its  hue  from  those  bitter  and  bloody  times,  and 


§  5.     WHO    WAS    THE    AUTHOR  ?  77 

have  administered  severe  rebuke  to  the  blood-thirsty  Syrian 
tyrant,  who  was  desolating  the  country  by  his  persecution  and 
his  massacres.  Besides,  it  is  made  quite  clear  by  Josephus 
(Cont.  Ap.  i.  8),  that  no  book  was  introduced  into  the  Jewish 
Canon,  after  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  the  son  of  Xerxes  I.  Co- 
heleth,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  written  so  late. 

Several  critics  speak  of  the  lateness  of  the  period,  as  neces- 
sarily connected  with  the  knowledge  of  Grecian  philosophy, 
which,  as  they  think,  the  book  evinces.  But  Knobel  himself 
confesses,  (and  so  Ilitzig),  that  there  is  not  a  tint  of  Greek 
philosophy  in  the  whole  book  ;  and  nothing  can  be  plainer  than 
this.  We  are  then  under  no  necessity  of  placing  the  composition 
of  the  book,  at  a  period  subsequent  to  the  conquests  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  and  the  introduction  of  Greek  learning  into  the  East. 
The  book  is  through  and  through  of  Hebrew  spirit,  and  is  indeed 
nothinor  but  Hebrew.     But  it  is  not  the  work  of  a  stickler  for 

o 

rites  and  offerings  ;  for  it  exhibits  enlightened  and  spiritual  views 
in  regard  to  this  subject. 

I  have  given  the  sum  of  what  can  be  alleged,  both  in  favor  of 
a  later  period  of  writing,  and  against  the  personal  authorship  of 
Solomon.  But  whoever  the  writer  was,  he  unquestionably  intro- 
duces Solomon  into  his  hook,  as  speaking  many  things  there  sug- 
gested. Chap,  ii,  in  particular,  comes  under  this  category  ;  and 
it  can  hardly  be  made  to  apply  to  any  other  Jewish  king  than 
Solomon.  Not  unfrequently,  however,  the  writer  speaks  of 
kings  as  a  third  person  would  speak,  who  was  a  mere  spectator 
of  their  demeanor,  and  not  himself  the  subject  of  what  is  said. 
We  have  seen  how  strangely  many  passages  concerning  rulers 
and  oppression,  would  sound  in  the  mouth  of  Solomon  himself. 
It  is  against  all  critical  probability,  therefore,  that  Solomon  was 
the  author.  But  the  writer  has  shown  us  no  other  metes  and 
bounds,  to  separate  what  he  says  himself  from  what  Solomon  is 
represented  as  saying,  excepting  what  the  matter  spoken  supplies. 
Nor  is  it  important  that  he  should  do  this ;  for  it  is  he  who 
really  speaks  in  both  cases,  but  in  one  of  them  he  speaks  through 
the  medium  of  a  supi)Osed  and  apparently  ditferent  person.  He 
gives  Solomon's  experience ;  and  in  giving  it,  he  figuratively 
introduces  Solomon  as  himself  relating  it.  This  belongs  merely 
7* 


78  §  5.   WHO  WAS  THE  author  ? 

to  the  form,  and  not  to  the  substance  of  the  book.  No  one  can 
justly  take  offence  at  this.  Why  may  not  the  author  do  so,  as 
well  as  Solomon  could  introduce  Wisdom  as  speaking  in  her 
own  person?  Prov.  viii.  The  apocryphal  book,  the  Wi&dom  of 
Solomon,  doubtless  in  imitation  of  Coheleth's  example,  introduces 
Solomon  as  speaking  throughout ;  see  chap.  7:1,  seq.  In  other 
words,  wisdom  is  'personified  in  Solomon.  And  although  we  can- 
not, with  Ewald  and  Hitzig,  admit  such  a  personification  here, 
(see  p.  41  above),  yet  the  general  principle,  in  respect  to  manner, 
is  the  same  in  Coheleth  as  in  the  other  books  just  named.  In 
Proverbs,  Wisdom  itself  is  personified  simply ;  in  the  book  of 
Wisdom,  Solomon  is  her  representative  and  personification; 
while  in  Coheleth,  Solomon  is  introduced,  not  as  wisdom,  but  as 
relating  his  own  experience  in  a  variety  of  things,  and  among 
these,  in  his  search  after  wisdom.  The  w^riter  has  chosen  to 
introduce  him  as  saying  this  and  that,  because  Solomon  was 
specially  qualified  to  say  it. 

I  cannot  see,  then,  any  need  of  introducing,  as  August!  does, 
Solomon's  ghost  as  the  speaker.  On  this  I  have  already  made 
remarks,  in  the  preceding  pages.  The  Hebrews  did  not  deal  in 
ghosts  ;  much  less  set  them  to  carry  on  dialogues  with  the  living. 
There  is  no  intimation  of  anything  of  this  nature  in  the  book 
itself.     It  is  not  a  part  of  Hebrew  machinery. 

There  are  several  reasons  why  the  author  should  introduce 
Solomon  so  often  as  speaker,  in  his  book.  (1)  As  the  great 
theme  of  the  book  is  the  vanity  of  all  earthly  things,  even  in  their 
best  estate,  no  person  could  be  introduced  whose  experience  in 
regard  to  all  that  could  adorn  life  and  render  it  happy,  was  so 
signally  marked  as  that  of  Solomon.  If  the  world  could  not 
make  him  happy,  tlien  it  could  promise  happiness  to  no  one  else. 
Chap.  ii.  gives  a  vivid  description  of  Solomon's  experience,  and 
pronounces  the  general  sentence  upon  it.  (2)  No  topic  is  so  fre- 
quently introduced  into  the  book,  as  that  of  ivisdom.  Solomon's 
experience  in  respect  to  this,  was  beyond  that  of  any  other  man. 
Hence  the  appropriateness  of  introducing  him  to  speak  concern- 
ing it.  Whoever  will  attentively  peruse  1  K.  2:  G.  3  :  12,  28.  4: 
29—34.  11 :  41.  10:  23,  24,  will  see  the  ground  of  Solomon's 
high  and  lasting  reputation  for  wisdom.     The  son  of  Sirach,  47  : 


§  G.     CREDIT    AXD    GENERAL    HISTORY    OF   THE    BOOK.      79 

14 — 19,  luis  sliown  how  this  matter  stood  in  his  time  ;  and  Matt. 
12  :  42.  Luke  11:  31,  advert  to  the  same  matter  as  it  stood  dur- 
ing the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era. 

These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  vindicate  the  autlior  of 
Coheleth,  for  intro(hicing  another  personage  than  himself,  viz. 
Solomon.  And  all  tliat  has  been  said  above,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
is  sufficient  to  show,  that  the  person  introduced  is  merely  an 
agent  in  the  writer's  hands,  and  not  one  who  simply  acts  for  him- 
self. But  be  this  as  it  may,  it  will  alter  neither  the  design  nor 
the  general  meaning  of  the  book  before  us.  It  is  not  a  question 
de  re  ipsa,  but  only  one  de  niodo  in  quo. 


§  C.    Credit  and  general  History  of  the  Boole. 

It  cannot  seem  strange  to  any  reflecting  mind,  that  a  book 
replete  with  so  many  things,  which  at  first  view  seem  to  be  para- 
doxical, or  skeptical,  or  in  opposition  to  sound  morals,  should 
have  excited,  in  some  minds,  suspicions  of  its  orthodoxy  and 
divine  authority.  If  it  be  read,  as  most  readers  in  ancient  times 
seem  to  have  read  it,  as  containing  nothing  but  the  sentiments  of 
Solomon  himself,  it  is  indeed  a  task  more  difficult  than  that  which 
Oedipus  had  to  perform  in  solving  the  riddle  of  the  Sphinx,  to 
make  out  such  a  solution  of  some  parts  of  the  book  as  will  cause 
them  to  speak  orthodoxg. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  "Wisdom  seems  to  have  felt  the 
difficulties  presented  by  Ecclesiastes.  In  2  :  1 — 0  he  has  exhib- 
ited what  looks  like  a  series  of  quotations  and  abridged  views  of 
parts  of  Coheleth  ;  and  this  series  he  prefaces  by  saying  :  "  They 
say  to  themselves  who  speak  not  rightly;''  after  which  follow 
the  apparent  citations  just  referred  to.  When  these  are  ended 
he  makes  a  f«w  additions  of  the  like  tenor,  and  then  winds  up 
with  saying:  "Thus  they  reason,  and  are  deceived;  their  evil 
disposition  lias  blinded  them,  and  they  know  not  the  mysteries 
of  God,  neitlier  do  they  hope  for  reward  of  holiness,  nor  regard 
the  reward  of  spotless  souls  ;"  Wisd.  2  :  21,  22.  But  to  under- 
stand this  matter  fully,  the  reader  must  compare  the  following 
passages :  — 


80   §  G.  CREDIT  AND  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOK. 

Wisdom,  CJiap.  ii. 

(v.  1)  comp.  Ecc.  2  :  23,  3.    5  :  17.    C  :  12.   8:8.   3  :  22. 

(2)  "      9  :  11.   3  :  2.   9  :  4,  5,  6,  comp.  3  :  18—21. 

(3)  "      3:20.    12:7. 

(4)  "      1 :  11.   2  :  16.    9  :  5,  comp.  4  :  IG. 

(5)  "       6:  12.    11  :8.    9:  10.    12:5.    3:22. 

(G)      "      3:12.    G:9.   1 1 :  9,  comp.  3  :  22.   5:17.    9:7— 

9.   11:8. 
.  (7)      "      9:8. 

(8)  "      id. 

(9)  "      3  :  22.   5  :  17,  18.   8  :  15.    9  :  9. 

At  first  view,  it  would  seem  as  if  there  could  not  be  much 
doubt,  whether  the  book  of  Coheleth  is  cited  in  Wisdom.  From 
what  the  writer  says  immediately  before  and  after  the  apparent 
citations,  it  is  plain  that  he  sets  himself  in  array  against  the 
sentiments  contained  in  them.  But  even  supposing  them  to  be 
actual  citations,  a  question  still  would  arise  here,  viz.  Whether 
he  is  opposing  Coheleth,  or  the  ivrong  use  of  Coheleth  ?  Perhaps 
we  cannot  answer  this  question  with  entire  certainty.  But  the 
high  respect  which  the  author  of  Wisdom  shows  for  the  law  of 
the  Lord,  his  precepts,  and  the  religious  fear  of  him,  shows  that 
he  cherished  a  great  regard  for  religion,  and  of  course  for  the 
Scriptures ;  and  beyond  all  doubt  Coheleth  was  attached  to  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  long  before  his  time.  That  he  should  array 
himself  against  the  book  itself,  then,  is  very  improbable ;  and  at 
all  events,  it  is  without  any  parallel  in  any  other  Jewish  apocry- 
phal writer.  The  Jewish  tone  of  those  days  is  very  far  from  any- 
thing, which  would  look  like  abating  from  the  high  claims  of  the 
sacred  books.  For  these  reasons,  I  must  believe  that  the  author 
of  Wisdom,  if  he  has  quoted  Ecc,  is  describing  the  mal-practice 
of  those  who  deduced  such  doctrines  as  he  mentions  from  the 
book  in  question,  instead  of  reading  and  interpreting  it  according 
to  its  true  design  and  intention.  In  speaking  thus,  the  implica- 
tion is,  that  he  understood  the  ohjeclionahle  passages  as  coming 
from  an  objector.  Others,  supposing  them  to  exhibit  Solomon's 
true  views,  appealed  to  them  as  good  authority  for  skepticism 
and  sensuality ;  and  these  he  designs  to  reprove.     But  as  we  do 


§  G.  CREDIT  AND  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOK.   81 

not  know  the  degree  of  light  whieli  the  writer  of  the  book  of 
Wisdom  had,  respecting  the  nature  of  Coheleth,  we  cannot  decide 
Tvitli  entire  certainty  whether  he  speaks  in  opposition  to  the  book 
or  to  the  abuse  of  it.  The  hitter  is,  at  all  events,  by  far  the  most 
probable  sui)p<)sition,  in  respect  to  a  high-minded  and  orthodox 
Jew. 

A  mimile  inspection,  however,  and  a  comparison  of  the  passages 
referred  to  above,  will  after  all  suggest  doubts,  whether  the  author 
of  Wisdom  meant  to  fjuote  Coheleth.  There  are  several  turns  of 
expression  which  seem  to  come  from  Ecc. ;  for  they  spontaneous- 
ly remind  the  reader  of  expressions  in  that  book.  But  there  are 
others  which  are  quite  unlike  to  Ecc. ;  and  these  are  sufficiently 
numerous  to  raise  some  doubt.  Ilitzig  rejects  the  idea;  Knobel 
strives  to  vindicate  it  at  length,  Einl.  §  10.  What  the  latter 
quotes  as  citations  is  comprised  in  2  :  2 — 9,  as  exhibited  above. 
Then  follow  11  vs.  of  his  own  language;  and  it  is  only  in  vs.  21, 
22,  that  we  find  a  condemning  sentence  passed.  Now  if  vs.  9  — 
11  contained  what  he  aimed  mainly  to  oppose  and  condemn,  we 
should  expect  the  condemning  sentence  to  be  produced  in  v.  10, 
instead  of  v.  21.  As  the  text  now  stands,  it  looks  as  if  the  author 
regarded  the  whole  of  2:  1 — 22  as  the  expression  of  his  own 
language,  although  it  hardly  admits  of  a  doubt,  that  his  expres- 
sions were  modijied  by  the  reading  of  Ecclesiastes.  The  fact, 
that  no  other  Heb.  writer  of  that  day,  and  long  afterwards,  ever 
opposes  any  part  of  the  O.  Test.,  makes  against  the  views  of 
Knobel,  and  in  favor  of  the  sentiment  of  Ilitzig. 

The  Tahnud  seems  to  intimate,  that  some  Jewish  teachers  were 
at  that  time  seeking  to  show,  that  Ecc.  was  a  book  which  did  not 
spring  from  divine  inspiration.  In  Tract.  Shabb.  fol.  30.  col.  2, 
it  is  said :  "  The  learned  [the  0^'?^'!!]  sought  to  lay  aside  (tisab 
lit.  to  hide)  the  book  Coheleth,  because  the  declarations  thereof 
contradict  each  other."  In  Pesich.  Ilab.  fol.  33.  col.  1,  in  Yay- 
yiqra  Rabba,  fol.  IGl.  col.  2,  and  in  Midr.  Kohel.  fol.  311.  col.  1, 
it  is  said :  "  The  learned  sought  to  lay  aside  the  book  Coheleth, 
because  they  found  therein  words  leaning  to  the  side  of  the  here- 
tics." In  Midr.  Kohel.  fol.  1 14.  col.  1,  a  different  reason  is  given, 
viz.  "  Because  all  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  consists  at  last  in  this : 
Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth,  etc. ;  which  is  at  variance 
with  Num.  15:  39."     Jerome  relates  like  thini^js  of  the  Hebrews 


82       §  6.    CREDIT   AND    GENERAL    HISTORY    OF   THE    BOOK. 

of  his  day.  According  to  him  they  say  :  "  Among  other  writings 
of  Solomon,  which  have  become  antiquated,  and  the  memory  of 
them  lost,  this  book  deserves  to  be  obliterated,  because  it  asserts 
that  all  the  creatures  of  God  are  vain,  and  regards  them  as 
nothing,  and  it  gives  the  preference  to  eating  and  drinking  and 
other  transitory  pleasures,"  Comm.  in  Ecc.  2  :  13.  He  himself 
pronounces  the  book  to  be  one  of  authority,  and  worthy  to  be 
numbered  with  the  divine  books,  because  it  ends  with  the  conclu- 
sion, that  ",  We  should  fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments," 
ib.  In  Midr.  Cohel.  and  Tract.  Shabb.,  as  above  cited,  the  writ- 
ers subjoin  to  what  is  there  quoted :  "  And  why  did  they  not  lay 
it  aside  ?  Because  at  the  beginning  are  words  of  the  law,  and 
at  the  end  are  words  of  the  law."  Not  a  bad  reason,  so  far  as  it 
goes ;  but  it  cannot  go  far,  for  a  book  might  have  words  of  the 
Law  at  the  beginning  and  end,  without  having  any  claim  to  be  a 
divine  book. 

Spinoza  (Tract,  theol.  pol.,  p.  15,  27)  says  of  Solomon,  that 
"  he  excelled  others  in  wisdom,  but  not  in  the  prophetic  gift ;" 
and  he  blames  him,  because  he  has  taught  that  "  every  thing  is 
vain." 

All  this  amounts  indeed  to  very  little.  We  know  from  Sirach, 
Philo,  Josephus,  and  the  early  Christian  writers,  that  Coheleth 
belonged  to  the  Jewish  Scriptures  in  their  times,  i.  e.  both  before 
and  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  It  is  critically  certain,  that  it  was 
included  in  the  Scriptures  sanctioned  as  divine  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  But  as  I  have  fully  discussed  this  subject  in  my  little 
work  on  the  Canon  of  the  O.  Test.,  I  need  not  repeat  the  discus- 
sion here. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  none  of  the  N.  Test,  writers  have  quoted 
it ;  but  equally  true  as  to  several  other  books  ^^'ho^e  canonicity 
cannot  be  questioned.  The  argumentum  a  silentio,  we  may  again 
say,  is  of  no  value  here.  '  They  did  not  cite  it,  because  they  did 
not  need  to  cite  it  for  their  purpose,'  —  is  a  sufficient  answer. 

In  like  manner  Christians  of  the  earliest  ages  do  not  cite  it, 
and  for  a  like  reason.  At  a  later  period,  Gregory  Nyss.,  Jerome, 
Olympiodorus,  and  Oecumenius,  wrote  Commentaries  on  Cohe- 
leth. Philastrius  of  Brescia  (t387),  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
(t420),  regarded  it  as  savouring  of  Epicureanism,  and  as  unin- 
spired.   But  the  Council  of  Constantinople  (A.  D.  boo),  at  which 


§  6.  CREDIT  AND  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOK.   83 

165  bishops  were  present,  anathematized  this  position.  Abul 
Pharagius,  the  Jacobite  Maffrian  (11286),  maintained  that  the 
book  agrees  with  P^mpedocles,  viz.  that  it  dechires  there  is  no 
future  state  of  existence. 

The  book  remained  without  being  seriously  assailed,  after  the 
decision  at  Constantinople,  nntil  a  period  subsequent  to  the  Re- 
formation. The  older  commentators  among  the  Reformers  main- 
tained the  position,  that  it  was  written  by  vSolomon,  and  they 
regarded  all  its  words  as  indicative  of  his  opinions,  and  did  the 
best  they  could  to  reconcile  them  with  each  other,  and  with  the 
rest  of  the  Scriptures.  If  the  subject  were  not  of  so  grave  a 
nature,  many  of  their  efforts  at  interpretation  would  provoke  the 
smile  of  the  interpreter  at  the  present  day.  It  is,  indeed,  a  diffi- 
cult task  to  make  such  passages  as  4 :  19 — 21  speak  ortJiodo.ry. 

Le  Clerc  threw  out  hints,  calling  in  question  the  inspiration 
and  authority  of  the  book.  He  was  answered  by  Witsius,  Carp- 
zov,  and  others.  On  the  same  side  with  the  latter  were  S. 
Schmidt,  Geier,  Rambach,  and  many  others.  In  recent  times 
the  book  has  undergone  every  kind  of  accusation  and  contumely. 
Eichhorn,  and  even  Jahn  and  Staudlin,  Augusti,  De  Wette,  and 
others,  accuse  it  now  of  immorality,  of  skepticism,  and  of  Epicu- 
reanism, then  of  gloomy  views,  of  contradictions,  and  the  like. 
Knobel  accuses  it  of  fatalism  and  skepticism  ;  as  does  Hitzig  also ; 
but  both  allow,  that  the  book  makes  mention  of  many  things 
which  are  not  to  be  taken  as  the  settled  opinions  of  the  author. 
Yet  even  these  two  last-named  critics  do  not  appear  to  have 
sufficiently  considered  the  whole  plan  and  modus  of  the  book,  as 
to  its  presenting  doubts  and  diilicultics,  and  then  sooner  or  later 
solving  them.  If  the  author  is  allowe<l  to  be  a  man  of  acute  and 
discerning  mind,  (and  most  will  allow  this),  then  the  supposition 
that  all  parts  of  the  book,  even  those  which  contradict  each  other, 
are  to  be  regarded  as  each  giving  alike  the  author's  own  views,  is 
little  short  of  an  absurdity.  No  man  of  sense  would  contradict 
himself  so  often,  within  such  narrow  limits. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  give  the  recent  history  of  the  views 
respecting  Coheleth,  which  have  been  entertained  by  many  crit- 
ics ;  since  their  oi)inions  have  been  sufficiently  stated  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages.  One  thing  undoubtedly  is  true,  viz.  that  many 
Christians,  and  even  many  preachers  of  the  gospel,  seldom  re- 


84   §  G.  CREDIT  AND  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOK. 

sort  to  this  book  for  instruction,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
favorite  apothegms  and  sententious  declarations.  There  are 
things  in  the  book  which  seem  to  them  plain  ;  and  these  they 
quote  with  the  more  pleasure,  because  they  are  so  pointed  and 
full  of  meaning.  But  in  many  parts  of  the  book,  they  fail  en- 
tirely in  discovering  any  thread  of  discourse,  or  the  specific  object 
which  the  writer  has  in  view.  The  consequence  is,  that  they 
look  on  the  book  much  as  they  do  on  the  book  of  Proverbs.  I 
mean  that  they  regard  it  as  having  about  as  little  of  unity  and 
connection  as  the  latter  book.  When  the  author  speaks  of '  dead 
flies  as  causing  the  ointment  of  the  apothecary  to  become  offen- 
sive in  smell ;'  or  when  he  speaks  of  '  a  dulled  tool  which  must 
be  swung  the  harder  in  order  to  make  it  cut ;'  they  wonder  what 
bearing  this  can  have  on  the  subject  of  religion,  or  even  on  the 
general  theme  of  worldly  vanity.  And  certainly  this  perplexity 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  considering  the  nature,  plan,  and  course 
of  thought  in  the  book.  It  requires  long  and  diligent  study  to 
discover  all  its  bearings,  after  they  have  so  long  been  overlooked, 
and  nearly  the  whole  of  commentary  has  betaken  itself  to  mere 
moralizing  on  some  of  the  leading  apothegms.  A  folio  o^ preach- 
ment on  Ecc.  is  rather  a  formidable  affair  to  readers  who  have 
but  little  time  at  command.  What  they  really  want,  is  to  get  at 
the  thoughts  of  the  writer,  and  not  merely  to  know  what  others 
have  thought  and  said  on  certain  ethical  topics  presented  by  him. 
Hence  not  a  few  of  the  folios  which  have  been  written,  disap- 
point their  hopes.  More  than  most  readers  want,  in  respect  to 
the  views  and  reasonings  of  commentators,  they  can  easily  find ; 
but  of  the  difficulties  in  the  text  itself,  whether  of  language  or 
sentiment,  they  are  still  obliged  to  forego  the  solution. 

C(juld  the  l)ook  be  placed  in  its  true  light  before  the  public 
mind,  it  would  aid  very  much  in  restoring  to  it  the  usefulness 
which  it  is  adapted  to  subserve.  At  all  events,  many  of  the 
difficulties  would  be  removed,  which  now  embarrass  and  hedge 
up  the  way  of  the  inquirer,  and  especially  of  the  common  reader. 
The  writer  of  the  following  commentary  would  fain  indulge  the 
hope,  that  more  satisfactory  views  of  the  book  may  be  disclosed, 
by  the  efforts  which  he  has  made  to  explain  it.  At  least  the 
student  of  Hebrew  has  a  claim,  to  expect  that  something  more 
may  l)e  done  to  aid  him,  than  will  be  found  in  the  great  mass  of 
even  the  recent  commentators. 


§  7.    SEPT.    VERSION.  85 

§  7.  Ancient  Versions  of  Cohehth. 
(I.)  The  Skptuacixt.  Tlic  most  ancient  version  of  the  whole 
Hebrew  SLTii)tiires,  of  which  we  liave  any  kno-wledge,  is  that  of 
the  SepfmtffinL  Tliat  this  work  as  a  whole  was  made  by  differ- 
ent hands,  is  quite  evident  from  the  variety  of  diction  and  style 
of  translating  in  different  books.  Aristobulus  says,  that  the 
whole  of  tlie  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  translated,  during  the  reio-n 
of  l^tolemy  Lagi  and  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  his  son,°(323— 246 
B.  c.)  ;  quoted  in  De  Wette,  Einleit.  §  40.  n.  e.  But  whether  for 
the  purposes  of  augmenting  the  far-famed  Alexandrian  Library, 
or  to  meet  the  religious  wants  of  the  Jews,  is  a  question  not 
entirely  settled.  I  see  no  dilficuity  in  combining  both  reasons. 
The  two  first  Ptolemies  treated  the  Jews  with  great  favor,  and 
drew  multitudes  of  them  to  Alexandria.  They  might  have 'pro- 
cured the  Sept.  version  to  be  made,  as  a  designed  I'avor  towards 
them. 

Very  diverse  is  the  genius  of  translation  in  different  books,  as 
I  have   intimated  above.     But  this  diversity  could  as  well  be 
exhibited  during  the  seventy-seven  years  of  the  reign  of  the  two 
Ptolemies,  as  in  a  longer  and  later  period.     If  any  one  would 
obtain  full  conviction  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  Greek,  in  various 
books  of  the  Sept.,  let  him  read  Job  and    Proverbs,  and  then 
come  to  the  reading  of  Coheleth.  Job  and  Prov.,  being  translated 
by  a  reader  of  the  classics,  afford  evidence  that  the  author  strove 
to  exliibit  classical  Greek;  especially  in  the  Prov.  does  he  do 
this,  even  at  the  expense,  not  unfrequently,  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew.     By  his  transpositions,  his  large  additions,  and  his  sub- 
tractions also,  he  has  made  the  book  quite  another  thing  than 
what  the  original  is.     But  in  Ecc,  there  is  next  to  notiiing  of  all 
this  ;  nor  is  there  any  aim  at  classic  style.     As  a  whole,  the  ver- 
sion must  be  pronounced  a  faithful,  and  in  this  respect,  successful 
one.     There  is  a  literality  of  translating,  which  sometimes  sur- 
prises, and  sometimes  (I  had  almost  said)  amuses  us.    For  exam- 
ple, the    translation    not   unfrequently  renders   the  TX ,  which 
marks  the  Ace.  in  Heb.,  by  a6v  in  Greek,  even  when  the  noun 
connected  with  tx  is  put  in  the  Ace. ;  e.  g.  /  hated  u^^nr^'r^_  is 
translated  by  f>/(T/;rr«  avv  ti]v  ^coijp,  2:17;  and  sp  in  3':"l7  bis 
4:3.    7:30.    8:8,15,17.    0:15.    11:7.    12:9.     Yet  in  other 
8 


86  §  7.    SEPT.    VERSION. 

cases,  the  writer  appears  plainly  to  understand  the  true  meaning 
of  -rs ,  as  marking  the  Ace.  and  being  equivalent  to  a  demon- 
strative. But  one  would  come  to  erroneous  conclusions  respect- 
ing the  translator's  Greek,  should  he  judge  of  it  by  such  a  barba- 
rism. The  simple  truth  is  that,  in  his  rigid  effort  to  be  as  literal 
as  possible,  he  has  admitted  avv  as  a  translation  of  -nj<,  because 
this  word  not  unfrequently  means  ivith  =  Gvr.  He  aimed  to  give 
what  he  thought  to  be  the  very  shape  of  the  Hebrew,  even  at  the 
expense  of  grammatical  propriety  in  Greek. 

Servile  imitations  of  the  Hebrew  double  pronoun,  i.  e.  ^'rx  with 
a  subsequent  pronoun,  may  be  seen  in  4:  9,  oig  Iditv  avTOig  fiia&og. 
So  in  6  :  2.  But  this  is  less  frequent  here  than  in  some  other 
books.  In  other  cases,  there  is  a  servile  literality  in  deference 
to  etymology,  without  due  regard  to  usage  and  proper  sense; 
e.  g.  n-in^n  ^3) ,  on  account  of,  Sept.  neol  Icdidg,  making  n'nnT  = 
"i^ri,  si  18.  7  :  15.  So  in  8:9,  Ci'nxa,  [m/e]  over  man,  Sept.  Iv 
aVoQ^^mp,  h  being  inapposite  here,  but  still  it  gives  the  literal 
sense  of  2.  So  6  :  6,  n^-cs'Q,  twice,  Sept.  y.ad-odovg,  vices,  i.  e. 
turns  or  returns,  which,  although  singular  Greek  here,  still  does 
not  spoil  the  sense  ;  10  :  17,  nn^3.;\3,  on  account  of  strength.  Sept.  h 
dvvuim,  which  gives  an  erroneous  sense  in  this  place,  altliough 
literal.  Instances  not  unfrequently  occur,  where  the  form  of  the 
Heb.  Fut.  tense  is  imitated  by  a  Greek  Future,  when  the  sense 
merely  indicates  what  is  often  repeated  or  habitually  done,  which 
is  according  to  the  genius  of  the  Heb.  verb  ;  while  in  such  cases 
the  Greek  verb  might  properly  be  put  in  the  Present.  E.  g.  10  : 
6,  ^^'4: ,  sit,  Sept.  yia{yii6ovzai  Fut.,  while  it  should  be  'AaO^vrai. 
So  11:  5.  10:  12.  10 :  4,  al. 

In  not  a  few  cases,  the  Heb.  words  were  read  by  the  translator, 
by  supplying  vowels  differing  from  the  present  ones,  and  in  such 
a  way  as  to  make  it  plain,  that  his  copy  had  no  ivritten  vowels ; 
e.  g.  i<^n^3&,  he  is  a  fool,  Sept.  dcpQoavvtj  taziv,  i.  e.  the  transla- 
tor read  i<5nb3D,  10  :  3  ;  so  ix'n^:'  rrn^^"?  ,  theij  are  afraid  of  what  is 
high,  Sept.  «tV  to  vipog  oTiGovtai,  they  shall  see,  etc.,  i.  e.  they 
read  ;i5<T.  from  nn^,  12:  5.  In  the  passage  12:  9,  is  a  peculiar 
example  "of  this  soVt,  viz.,  nsnn  n'^b'^'?  il^^  ^^.^)  ':^^:'  ^^^  '^f^'^¥'< 
and  sought  out,  and  arranged  many  apothegms,  Sept.  y.ui  ovg 
i^iXvidoFTca  xod^uov  mioa^olav,  i.  e.  the  ear  searches  out  an 
orderly  array  of  parables,  where  the  text  must  of  course  have  been 


§  7.    SEPT    VERSION. 


87 


read  =^Vr:3  •,;?n  ^.pn;}  "(."rx^,  while  ns-n  is  joined  by  the  translator 
to  the  following  verse.  In  2  :  12, -'^'zn ,  the  King,  is  rendered  r^? 
§ovXF^i;,  i.  e.  it  was  read  7);^^,  wln<;l^  a^^  in  Chaldce,  probably- 
meant  counsel.  In  10  :  4,  iufiu  is  an  exami)le  of  the  literal  sense 
of  xs-i-s  instead  of  the  troi)ical  one,  viz.  gentleness.  In  10  :  17,  we 
have  ovy.  aiaivv&i]aovTia  for  the  Ileb.  "^r'i-n  xb,  not  on  account  of 
drunkenness;  where,  of  course,  the  translator  must  have  read 
n'iJn  xb,  no  shame.  Instead  of  simply  saying,  with  the  Ileb.  thus 
pointed,  no  shame,  the  Sept.  now  says  :    They  ivill  not  be  ashamed. 

In  other  cases,  mistakes  were  made  by  a  wrong  reading  of  con- 
sonants. In  5:  IG,  he  renders  hz)k^,  shall  eat,  by  h  ntvOei  in 
mourning,  i.  e.  he  read  bzxi ,  jjutting  ifor  d.  In  6  :  12  (Sept.  7  :  1) 
for  bits ,  as  a  shadow,  he  has  Iv  G'aiu,  exchanging  consonants  as 
before.  In  8  :  G,  for  rrn ,  evil,  Avas  read  rrn  .  In  8:10,  ^nsrir^ , 
they  were  forgotten,  was  read  ^in^nr;',  and  then  translated  by  eti^- 
vi'&Eaar,  they  were  praised,  by  the  same  error  of  reading  n  for  3. 
In  7:  12  (Sept.  7:  13),  bss2  was  again  read  b:i3,  and  translated 
co<^  C'/Ja. 

From  the  facts  already  exhibited,  it  seems  quite  clear,  that  the 
translator  had  no  written  vowels  to  guide  him ;  and  that  the  con- 
sonants 3  and  2  were  often  carelessly  wa-itten,  so  that  the  distinc- 
tion between  them  could  be  made  only  with  difhculty.  A  fact 
like  this  shows  also,  that  the  Hebrew^  alphabet  must  have  then  had 
the  same/orms  of  letters  which  it  now  exhibits. 

In  a  few  cases,  words  in  the  text  are  overlooked ;  e.  g.  3  :  20, 
7|b"in  Vxn,  which  is  translated  only  by  ta  ndvia.  In  5:12, 
nrn  is  omitted.  In  8 :  9,  ^.rx  rr  is  either  omitted,  or  else  read 
as  ^urx  br  and  translated  ra  ooa,  inasmxich  as.  If  there  be 
any  more  omissions,  they  have  escaped  a  careful  perusal.  These 
make  quite  an  insignificant  number. 

Additions,  however,  amount  to  more  than  omissions.  Yet 
few  are  of  any  consi(leral)le  importance.  In  4 :  2,  all  is  added  to 
the  dead ;  in  4  :  17,  merely  thy  after  sacrifice ;  in  5  :\,  above  after 
heaven  ;  in  7  :  15,  lo  !  before  the  third  clause ;  7  :  22  (Ilebr.  7  : 
21),  for  they  say,  we  have  the  phrase,  the  ungodly  say ;  in  7  :  23 
(Ileb.  7  :  22),  Tihidrcr/.i^'  TzoryotvasTat  as  has  no  corresponding 
original  ;  and  in  the  next  clause,  t"'^.^  was  read  for  rn^  ;  in  7: 
27  (Ileb.  7  :  2(j),  y.a]  hjm  is  not  in  the  Ileb. ;  the  last  clause  of  8  : 
17  is  very  paraphrastic,  corresponding  only  in  a  remote  way  with 


88  §  7.    SEPT.    VERSION. 

the  Ileb.  in  9:1;  in  9  :  2,  y.a)  lo)  xuxm  is  added  after  the  Heb. 
"nv^ ,  apparently  with  good  reason,  if  analogy  in  the  rest  of  the 
verse  be  regarded;  in  10;  1,  in  the  second  clause,  the  sense  is 
strangely  missed,  by  rendering  it  ti^uov  oliyov  oo(fiag  vttIq  dohiv 
dqjQOGvvrjg  [itydlf]^ ;  10  :  19,  after  "i^^  the  Sept.  has  added  y.al 
eXaiov,  and  afterwards  inserted  rantivojoti  ;  and  in  11:  9,  the 
Greek  says  :  "  Walk  in  the  way  of  thy  heart  blameless,  (diicofAog), 
and  ?iot  by  the  sight  of  thine  eyes  ;"  the  words  italicised  not  being 
found  in  the  Hebrew.  It  is  evidently  a  loose  paraphrase  of  the 
Hebrew,  designed  to  save  the  credit  of  Coheleth's  orthodoxy. 
In  2:  15,  diozi  6  uq)Qcov  i/.  TitQiooavixazog  lalei  is  added  to  the 
text. 

These  are  nearly  all  the  additions  made  to  the  text,  in  the  trans- 
lation before  us.  They  constitute  but  a  small  list,  considering  the 
length  of  the  book  ;  and  they  are  of  very  little  importance  in  a 
doctrinal  point  of  view.  Doubtless  the  translator,  although  he 
follows  the  Hebrew  so  closely  in  his  version,  did  not  feel  himself 
bound  to  say,  in  all  cases,  exactly  what  the  Hebrew  says  and  no 
more.  Still,  he  would  have  done  better  to  stick  closely  to  his  text ; 
for  his  additions  do  not  help  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew,  nor  enable 
us  better  to  understand  it 

In  some  cases  we  find  mistakes  in  the  Greek  version.  In  3  : 
16,  we  have  tva^^ijg  where  w^e  should  have  ccGe^/jg,  (probably, 
however,  a  mere  error  of  some  transcriber)  ;  4 :  1  is  avy.oqjuvTiug, 
false  accusations,  for  nijrrds'ri  ;  4 :  4,  dvdQtav  for  "jii'^iis  ;  5:5, 
Ivd  [i^  for  n^b  ;  5  :  6  he  renders :  In  the  multitude  of  dreams, 
and  of  vanities,  and  of  many  words,  mistaking  the  relation  of  the 
last  two  nouns.  To  save  detail,  I  refer  the  reader  to  1: 17, 18.  2  : 
12,20,25.  5:9,10.  7:8,13,15,17,26.  10:19.  12:5,11.  This 
last-cited  passage  (12:11)  is  worth  inserting,  for  its  version  of 
perhaps  the  most  difficult  passage  in  the  whole  book.  It  runs 
thus :  Xoyoi  oocpojr  ag  rd  ^ovxEvzQa,  vau  ^g  ijXoi  7Teq)Vitvfit'i>ot,  oi 
7TU()d  Tojv  ovvi}r^fidro3v  idoOticrav  i/.  TToifuvog  Evog,  i.  e.  "  the 
words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads,  and  as  nails  driven  in,  which  are 
given  from  the  collections  by  one  shepherd  ;"  almost  as  rendered 
by  Ilitzig,  and  with  only  a  shade  of  difference  from  the  version 
which  I  have  given  to  it  in  the  Commentary.  One  cannot  well 
see,  why  such  strange  translations  should  have  been  made  of  this 
verse,  either  in  earlier  or  later  times,  with  this  model  before  the 


§  7.   VULGATE    VERSION.  89 

writers.  The  tiuqu  ovvOmidxwv  gives  us  a  hint  of  the  true  sense 
of  msDX  "^'s:;?,  the  possessors  of  collections,  and  na()u.  here  marks 
merely  the  rehition  o^  source,  while  avvOi^tiu  means  lit.  tilings  put 
together.  The  translator  failed  to  discern,  that  these  Hebrew  words 
are  in  the  Noni.,  and  constitute  the  subject  of  the  second  clause. 
See  Commentary. 

Besides  this,  there  arc  other  fortunate  renderings.  For  ex- 
ample, in  5 :  8,  Kai  TzeQiaatia  j'/;;,'  ^^i  navii  tan,  ^uaiXtv^'  rov 
dyQov  tiQyaafit'rou,  exactly  true  to  the  original,  and  quite  plain, 
although  endlessly  varied  in  modern  times.  So  the  last  clause  of 
5:  19,  0  Otog  TTtQiana  uvthv  h>  Evcfoocivv)]  y.andiu^'  avzov.  Here 
TTF.Qta^u  means  to  divert  one's  attention  from  a  thing,  and  so  to 
divert  it,  in  this  case,  from  brooding  over  afflictions  in  past  times. 
This  is  accomplished  by  the  joyful  state  of  mind  now  conferred. 
The  Heb.  nai'TS  has  more  usually  been  rendered  here  by  humble 
or  afflict,  while  it  means  in  reality,  in  the  case  before  us,  causes 
to  answer  or  correspond  with.  In  another  way  than  by  a  literal 
rendering,  the  Sept.  has  hit  upon  the  kernel  of  the  thought,  and 
very  expressively  given  it.  These  may  serve  as  specimens.  To 
save  room,  I  must  merely  refer  the  reader  to  other  more  or  less 
happy  renderings  of  difficult  and  controverted  passages  ;  e.  g.  6  : 
3.  7:  25.  10:  10,  (singularly  curious,  but  not  correct).  10:11. 
12:  11,  which  is  given  in  full  above. 

On  the  whole,  this  version  should  be  a  Vade  mecinn  with  the 
student  of  this  book.  Even  where  he  does  not  get  light  from  it, 
he  will  feel  an  interest  in  it,  and  will  be  led  to  inquire,  how  and 
whg  the  w^riter  departed  from  the  apparent  meaning  of  the  He- 
brew ;  and  such  inquiries  will  lead  him  to  a  more  minute  study 
of  the  Hebrew.  The  literal  nature  of  the  version  in  general  is  an 
admirable  i)ledge  for  the  correctness  of  the  jiresent  Hebrew  text, 
as  compared  with  what  it  was  in  the  time  of  tlie  translator. 

(II.)  The  Vulga-TE.  This  is  so  commonly  known,  and  so 
easy  of  access,  that  much  need  not  be  said  here  respecting  it. 
Jerome,  as  every  one  will  see  who  reads  his  work,  translated  from 
the  original  Hebrew.  This  he  did,  after  having  spent  some 
twenty  years  in  Palestine  in  order  to  learn  it  thoroughly.  He 
accomplished  his  object,  beyond  what  we  should  have  deemed 
possible,  under  his  disadvantages.  There  were  then  no  grammars, 
no  lexicons,  no  commentaries,  extant  to  guide  him,  unless  we  name 
8* 


90  §  7.    VULGATE    VERSION. 

the  scanty  remarks  of  Origen  on  the  Hebrew  a  help  of  importance; 
which  would  surely  be  overrating  them.  But  he  had  the  Rabbies 
of  Tiberias  to  give  him  instruction,  among  whom  the  Masora,  if 
not  the  Talmud,  was  already  concocting.  It  is  plain  that  tliey 
possessed  a  good  traditional  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew. 

In  translating  Coheleth,  Jerome  doubtless  made  use  of  the  same 
Sept.  version  that  has  been  characterized  above.  His  translation, 
rigidly  as  he  professes  to  follow  the  Hebrew,  has,  on  the  whole, 
quite  as  many  deviations  from  a  literal  rendering  as  the  Septua- 
gint.  E.  g.  the  very  difficult  passage  in  3  :  11,  he  renders  thus  : 
"  Cuncta  fecit  bona  in  tempore  suo,  et  mundum  tradidit  disputa- 
tioni  eorum,  ut  not  inveniat  homo  opus  quod,  etc."  How  he  dis- 
posed of  csbs ,  to  make  disputationi  eorum  of  it,  one  cannot  well 
see.  Rather  better  has  he  hit  the  spirit  of  5  :  8 :  "  Et  insuper 
universae  terrae  rex  imperat  servienti ;"  still,  it  is  scarcely  pos- 
sible here  to  show  how  he  disposed  of  the  original  Hebrew 
M^ords,  in  order  to  make  out  such  a  version.  The  disputed  3:21, 
&<'ir|  nbi'rt  etc.,  he  renders  interrogatively :  "  Quis  novit  si  spiritus, 
etc. ;"  as  also  the  Sept.  does.  The  controverted  8  :  10  he  renders  : 
''  Vidi  impios  sepultos,  qui  etiam  cum  adhuc  viverent,  in  loco 
sancto  erant,  et  laudabantur  in  civitate  quasi  justorum  operum." 
Nothing  is  plainer,  than  than  he  did  not  understand  the  Hebrew 
here ;  or,  at  all  events  it  is  clear,  that  he  has  not  given  us  a  pic- 
ture which  nearly  resembles  the  original.  The  very  difficult  12 : 
11,  he  has,  by  the  aid  of  the  Sept.,  hit  much  nearer :  "  Verba  sapi- 
entium  sicut  stimuli,  et  quasi  clavi  in  altum  defixi,  quae  per 
magistrorum  consilium  data  sunt  a  pastore  uno." 

In  general,  as  we  might  expect,  Jerome  follows  closely  the 
Hebrew,  and  shows  himself  to  be  familiar  with  the  idiom  of  the 
book.  But  where  one  comes  to  a  serious  critical  difficulty, 
which  nothing  but  a  nicer  knowledge  oi  formal  grammar  and  of 
syntax  will  solve,  he  may  usually  expect  to  find  Jerome  halting. 
About  the  same  dependence  can  be  placed  on  him,  as  on  the  Sept. ; 
and  neither  of  them  will  satisfy,  in  all  respects,  the  present  de- 
mands of  criticism.  But  still,  at  all  events,  the  Vulgate  is  well 
worth  consulting.  We  see  in  it  the  actual  acquisitions  of  a  Chris- 
tian father  in  the  Hebrew  ;  and  it  is  well  worthy  of  attention,  as 
the  product  of  the  only  real  and  thorough  Hebrew  scholar  among 
all  the  Christian  fathers. 


§  7.     THE    SYRIAC    VERSION.  91 

(III.)  The  Syriac  Version,  or  Pesiiito.  This  is,  in  respect 
to  time,  the  next  after  that  of  the  Septuagint.  This  was  doubtless 
made  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  because  this  language  was  more 
easily  understood  by  a  Syrian,  than  the  Greek.  Jerome  api)ears 
to  have  had  no  knowledge  of  this  version  ;  although  he  might  have 
been  aided  by  it  in  a  number  of  respects.  But  there  is  no  good 
evidence  that  he  drew  from  it.  In  some  cases,  where  Jerome  has 
a  peculiar  rendering,  the  like  may  be  found  in  the  vSyriac  ;  which 
looks  as  if  the  former  drew  from  the  latter.  But  here  again  we 
may  without  much  difficulty  suppose,  if  possible,  that  Jerome  of 
himself  hit  upon  the  same  mode  of  j)araphrasing  a  difficult  pas- 
sage, which  the  Syriac  translator  had  adopted. 

That  the  Syriac  Pesiiito  was  made  in  the  second  century, 
seems  highly  probable,  from  the  recent  investigations  of  the  sub- 
ject which  have  been  made.  The  name  itself  d-^^AJk-iS  Pesldto) 
signifies  simple ;  and  it  seems  plainly  to  have  been  given  to  the 
translation  as  a  simple  and  literal  version,  in  opposition  to,  and 
distinction  from,  all  paraphrastic  and  allegorical  versions,  for 
example  such  as  the  Targum  below.  Ephrem  Syrus  (flour.  350), 
who  wrote  Commentaries  in  Syriac  during  the  fourth  century, 
speaks  of  the  Peshito  as  being  our  translation,  (Poc.  ad  Joelem, 
fol.  2)  :  and  he  undertakes  to  explain  a  number  of  Syriac  words 
in  the  version  as  being  already  antiquated,  and  unknown  to  com- 
mon readers.  Tradition  among  the  Syrians  goes  back  even  to  the 
apostle  Thaddeus  and  king  Abgarus  of  Edessa,  as  causing  the 
translation  to  be  made  ;  (Wiseman,  Hor.  Syr.  p.  103).  It  is  not 
contented  even  with  this,  but  assigns  the  translation  of  a  part  of 
the  0.  Test,  to  the  age  of  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  who,  as  it  says, 
requested  and  obtained  a  translation  of  some  books  from  Solomon  ; 
(Wisem.  ut  sup.  p.  97).  At  all  events,  considering  how  early 
Christianity  was  introduced  into  Syria,  and  how  learning  flour- 
ished at  Edessa,  we  shall  not  be  in  danger  of  erring  much,  if  we 
assign  the  version  before  us  to  the  second  century,  and  perhaps 
even  to  the  middle  or  earlier  half  of  it. 

Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  nothing  is  more  plain  and  certain, 
than  that  the  translation  was  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew. 
Jews  in  great  numbers,  who  had  been  driven  out  of  Palestine, 
had  emigrated  to  Syria,  and  lived  there,  at  the  period  in  question. 
A  Christian  Jew  was  the  probable  author  of  the  translation  ;  for 


92  §  7.    THE   ARABIC  VERSION. 

the  manner  of  handling  the  Messianic  passages  shows  clearly  his 
Cliristian  predilections.  Whatever  resemblances  may  be  found 
in  it,  to  some  peculiarities  of  the  Sept.,  it  is  plain  that  they  come 
from  later  interpolations,  made  with  the  design  of  conforming  it  to 
the  Septuagint. 

The  following  testimony  of  Ilavernick  respecting  this  version 
seems  to  me  to  be  quite  correct :  "  Among  all  the  known  ancient 
versions,  no  one  attaches  itself  so  faithfully  to  the  original  as  the 
Peshilo.  Usually,  it  gives  the  sense  of  the  ground-text  very  hap- 
pily ;  and  even  where  it  indulges  in  explanation,  it  limits  itself 
merely  to  what  is  necessary,  and  shuns  all  paraphrastic  prolixity," 
(Einl.  s.  05).  The  translator,  (doubtless  of  Jewish  origin),  stood 
in  the  same  relation  to  the  Hebrew,  as  did  the  Sept.  translators. 
But  the  former  had  one  advantage  over  the  latter,  viz.  that  the 
idiom  into  which  he  translated  was  altogether  a  twin  sister  of  the 
Hebrew,  while  the  Greek  was  sufficiently  remote  from  it.  Hence 
the  Syriac  translator  could  give,  and  has  given,  a  more  exact  pic- 
ture of  the  Hebrew,  than  the  Sept.  presents.  The  chief  reason 
why  appeal  has  not  oftener  been  made  to  it  in  O.  Test,  commen- 
taries, seems  to  have  been  a  want  of  familiarity  with  it,  and  a 
want  of  knowledge  as  to  its  real  worth. 

(IV.)  The  Arabic  Version,  which  appears  in  Walton's  Poly- 
glot, was  partly  made  from  the  original  Hebrew,  and  partly,  as  it 
would  seem,  from  the  Septuagint.  So  far  as  it  respects  Coheleth, 
it  is  by  no  means  an  unskilful  version.  It  keeps  close  to  the  text, 
and  indulges  in  no  prolix  or  conjectural  explanations,  like  to 
those  of  the  Targum  and  the  Midrashic  commentaries.  But  the 
difficulty  of  reading  it,  and  indeed  of  getting  access  to  it,  is  such, 
that  but  little  use  has  hitherto  been  made  of  it.  When  and  hy  whom 
it  was  made,  is  unknown.  So  much  seems  probable,  viz.  that  it 
was  made  by  an  Arabian  Jew,  who  was  probably  a  Christian. 

(V.)  The  Targum.  Not  long  before  the  Christian  era  com- 
menced, most  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  translated  into  the 
Ghaldee  language,  for  the  use  of  those  who  could  not  readily  under- 
stand the  original  Hebrew.  After  the  return  from  the  Babylonish 
exile,  the  Jewish  people  in  general  spoke  the  Chaidee,  which  they 
had  learned  during  the  long  period  of  their  captivity.  The  Penta- 
teuch was  translated  into  this  language  by  Onkelos  :  the  historical 
and  prophetical  books  by  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  who  probably  pre- 


§  7.    CHALDKE    TAKGUM.  93 

ceded  Oiikelos  in  respect  to  time ;  and  here  the  work  of  transla- 
tion, for  a  considerable  period,  ceased.  At  a  later  period,  the 
books  of  Job,  Psalms,  and  Proverbs:  and  finally,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Daniel,  all  the  rest  of  the  Ilaijioor- 
rai)hy  were  translated,  or  j)arai)hrased  into  Chaldee.  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  were  anciently  counted  as  one  book  ;  and  since  a  part 
of  this  composite  book  and  nearly  half  of  Daniel  were  originally 
written  in  CItaldee,  no  attempt  has  ever  been  made,  so  far  as  I 
know,  to  give  the  whole  book  a  Clialdee  translation. 

The  book  of  Kutli,  Cant.,  and  Ecc,  were  translated,  as  it  would 
seem,  last  of  all ;  but  exactly  when,  or  hy  whom,  is  not  known. 
Since,  however,  in  Cant.,  the  Targums  and  probably  the  Moham- 
medans are  mentioned,  (Cant.  1:  2.  5:  11 — 1:7),  it  would  seem 
that  the  version  of  the  three  books  last  named  was  post-lalmudic. 

The  internal  evidence  of  late  composition  is  made  out,  (1)  From 
the  kind  of  idiom  (Chaldaeo-Rabbinic)  which  pervades  them. 
(2)  From  the  fashion  of  the  commentary  (as  it  might  be  called), 
or  paraphrase,  which  shows  that  the  Midrash  (-"'^'l -)  or  allegorical 
commentary  had  already  been  fully  adopted  ;  (see  Buxt.  Lex. 
Cliald.  on  the  word).  As  we  have  scarcely  any  specimen  of  this 
kind  of  paraphrase  or  commentary  which  is  accessible  in  English 
books,  and  as  it  is  a  matter  of  some  interest  that  every  Hebrew 
student  should  know  what  kind  of  a  version  or  commentary  he 
will  tind  in  a  work  written  after  the  manner  of  a  Jlidrash,  I  shall 
here  lay  before  him  a  specimen,  (rather  a  prominent  one),  from 
the  Targum  on  Ecc.  ii.  The  large  type  represents  a  close  transla- 
tion of  the  original  Hebrew  ;  that  which  follows,  in  each  case,  in 
smaller  letters,  gives  the  Targum,  which  is  as  literally  translated 
as  the  two  idioms  will  bear. 

Ecc.  II. 

(1)  I  said  in  my  heart:  Come,  now,  let  me  try  thee  with 
pleasure,  and  do  thou  enjoy  good ;   and  lo !  even  this  is  vanity. 

I  said  in  my  heart:  Come  liitlier  now.  and  I  will  try  tlico  witli  jjloasiire; 
and  when  distr'^ss  and  aflhciion  came  upon  me,  1  said,  hy  his  word,  Lo !  this 
also  is  vanity. 

(2)  In  respect  to  laughter,  I  said :  Madness  !  And  in  respect  to 
pleasure  :  What  avails  it  ? 

In  respect  to  laughter,  I  said,  in  a  season  of  distress  :  It  is  mockery  !  And 
in  respect  to  pleasure  :  Of  what  use  is  it  to  tic  man  vho  f'roturcs  it  ? 


94  §  7.     ECC.    II.    WITH    TARGUM. 

(3)  I  sought  in  my  mind  to  draw  my  flesh  by  wine,  and  my 
mind  continued  to  guide  with  sagacity ;  and  also  to  lay  hold 
ujwn  folly ;  until  I  should  see  what  is  good  for  the  sons  of  men, 
which  they  should  do  during  the  number  of  the  days  of  their 
lives. 

I  sought  in  my  mind  to  protract  in  the  hanqucting-honse  of  Avinc  my  flesh, 
and  my  heart  guided  with  wisdom;  and  also  to  h\y  l)old  on  tlie  folly  of  the 
young,  until  I  should  try  and  see  what  there  is  of  them  which  is  good  for  the 
sons  of  men,  which  they  may  procure  while  they  abide  in  this  world  under 
heaven,  during  the  number  of  the  days  of  their  lives. 

(4)  I  engaged  in  great  undertakings  ;  I  built  for  myself  houses, 
and  planted  for  myself  vineyards. 

I  multiplied  goodly  works  in  Jerusalem ;  I  built  for  myself  houses :  the 
house  of  the  sanctuary  to  make  atonement  for  Israel ;  and  the  house  of  re- 
freshment for  the  king ;  the  council-chamber,  and  the  porch,  and  the  liouse 
of  judgment  with  hewn  stones,  Avhere  the  wise  men  sat  who  exercised  judg- 
ment ;  I  made  a  throne  of  ivory  for  the  seat  of  royalty  ;  I  made  plantations 
for  myself  in  Jabne  for  the  sake  of  grape-vines,  that  we  might  drink  wine, 
myself  and  the  masters  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  also  make  libations  of  wine 
new  and  old  upon  the  altar. 

(o)  I  made  for  myself  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds  ;  and  I 
planted  in  them  fruit-trees  of  every  kind. 

I  made  for  myself  watered  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds ;  and  I  sowed 
there  all  kinds  of  herbs,  some  of  them  for  the  use  of  food,  and  some  of  them 
for  the  use  of  drink,  and  some  of  them  for  a  medicinal  use,  every  kind  of  aro- 
matic herb;  1  planted  in  them  sterile  trees,  and  all  kinds  of  aromatic  trees 
which  the  sprites  and  demons  brought  to  me  from  India,  and  every  kind  of 
tree  which  produces  fruit:  and  its  boundary  was,  from  the  wall  of  the  city 
which  is  in  Jerusalem  to  the  margin  of  the  waters  of  Siloah. 

(6)  I  made  for  myself  pools  of  water,  for  watering  from  them 
the  forest  shooting  up  trees. 

I  sought  out  a  receptacle  of  water,  such  as  is  needful  to  water  trees  and 
herbs ;  and  I  made  for  myself  pools  of  water,  from  them  also  to  water  the 
grove  producing  wood. 

(7)  I  procured  servants  and  handmaids,  and  those  born  in  the 
house  belonged  to  me ;  much  property  also  in  flocks  and  herds 
belonged  to  me,  more  than  to  all  who  were  in  Jerusalem  be- 
fore me. 


§  7.    ECC.   II.   WITH    TARGUM.  95 

I  procured  servants  and  handmaids,  who  were  of  tlic  chihlrcn  of  Ham  and 
other  foreign  nations;  and  stewards. apjjointcd  over  the  feeding  of  my  house- 
hold, l)elongcd  to  me,  for  the  nouri>hing  of  me  and  the  men  of  my  house, 
twelve  months  of  the  year;  and  one  for  nourishing  nic  during  tlie  inter- 
calary month  ;  moreover,  I  possessed  cattle  and  sheep,  more  than  all  the 
dwellers  who  were  before  me  in  Jerusalem. 

(8)  I  hca})e(l  up  for  myself  silver  and  gold,  and  the  treasures 
of  kings  and  i)rovinces ;  I  i)rocured  for  myself  singing-men  and 
singing-women,  and  the  delight  of  the  sons  of  men,  a  wife  and 
wives. 

I  heaped  up  for  myself  treasures  of  silver  and  fine  gold,  that  I  might  make 
the  wi-ights  and  balances  of  justice  out  of  pure  gold  ;  and  the  treasures  of 
kings  and  provinces  were  given  to  me  for  tribute  ;  1  made  in  the  house  of  the 
sanctuary  instruments  of  music,  that  the  Levites  might  make  music  with 
them,  while  presenting  oblations ;  and  harps  and  pipes,  that  the  singing  men 
and  women  might  make  music  with  them  in  the  banquet-house ;  and  the 
delights  of  the  sons  of  men,  warm  baths  and  baths,  with  tubes  which  poured 
forth  tepid  water,  and  pii)cs  which  poured  forth  hot  water. 

(9)  And  I  waxed  great  and  increased  more  than  all  who  were 
before  me  in  Jerusalem  ;  my  wisdom  also  continued  with  me. 

And  I  increased  goods  and  added  riches,  above  all  the  dwellers  who  were 
belbre  me  in  Jerusalem  ;  my  wisdom,  however,  remained  with  me  and 
helped  me. 

(10)  And  all  which  my  eyes  sought  for,  I  withheld  not  from 
them  ;  I  kept  not  back  my  heart  from  any  joy  ;  for  my  heart 
was  cheered  by  all  my  toil,  and  this  was  my  portion  of  all  my 
toil. 

And  as  to  all  which  the  masters  of  the  Sanhedrim  requested  of  me,  in  re- 
spect to  purifying  and  polluting,  to  justifying  and  condemning — I  kept  not 
back  from  the  exi)lanation  of  things,  I  restrained  not  my  heart  from  every 
joy  of  the  Law ;  for  I  had  an  inclination  of  heart  to  rejoice  in  the  wisdom, 
which  had  been  given  to  me  from  God  more  than  to  all  other  men;  and  I 
rejoiced,  and  this  was  the  gooiUy  portion  which  was  assigned  to  me,  to  leceive 
on  account  of  it  a  perfect  reward  in  the  world  to  come  for  all  my  toil. 

(11)  Then  I  turned  towards  all  the  works  which  my  hands 
had  performed,  and  towards  the  toil  whicii  I  had  labored  to 
accomplish,  and  lo  I  all  was  vanity  and  fruitless  ettbrt,  and  there 
is  no  profit  under  the  sim. 

Then  I  considered  all  the  works  which  my  hands  had  accomplished,  and 


96  §  7.   Ecc.  ir.  with  targum. 

the  toil  wliich  I  liad  labored  to  accomplish ;  and  lo !  all  was  vanity  and 
crushing  of  spirit;  for  there  is  no  profit  in  them  under  the  sun,  in  this  world^ 
but  there  is  a  perfect  reward  for  good  works  in  the  world  to  come. 

(12)  Then  I  turned  to  contemplate  wisdom,  even  madness 
and  folly ;  for  what  shall  the  man  [do],  who  comes  after  the 
king  ?     Even  that  wliich  he  did  long  ago. 

Then  I  gave  attention  in  order  to  see  wisdom,  and  the  commotions  of  the 
kingdom,  and  understanding;  for  of  what  use  is  it  to  a  man  to  make  suppli- 
cation after  tlie  decree  of  the  king,  and  after  retribution?  See!  long  ago 
was  the  decision  made  respecting  him,  and  it  was  done  for  him. 

(13)  I  saw,  moreover,  that  there  is  a  preference  of  wisdom 
over  folly,  like  the  preference  of  light  over  darkness. 

I  saw,  moreover,  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  that  there  is  a  preference  of 
wisdom  over  folly,  more  than  the  preference  of  the  light  of  day  over  the  dark- 
ness of  the  night. 

(14)  The  eyes  of  the  wise  man  are  in  his  head,  but  the  fool 
walketh  in  darkness  ;  yet  still  I  know,  even  I,  that  one  destiny- 
awaits  them  all. 

The  wise  man  sees  in  the  beginning  what  will  come  to  pass  at  the  end  ; 
and  he  prays  and  averts  the  decree  of  evil  from  the  world  ;  but  the  fool  walk- 
eth in  darkness ;  and  I  also  know,  even  I,  that  if  the  wise  man  does  not  pray, 
and  avert  the  decree  of  evil  from  the  world,  when  retribution  shall  come 
upon  the  world,  one  destiny  shall  overtake  all  of  them. 

(15)  Then  I  said  in  my  heart:  As  is  the  destiny  of  the  fool, 
so  also  will  it  happen  to  myself;  and  why  then  should  I  be  over- 
much wise  ?     Then  said  I  in  my  heart :  This  also  is  vanity. 

Then  I  said  in  my  heart,  as  the  destiny  of  Saul  the  son  of  Kish.  (the  king 
who  perversely  revolted,  and  kept  not  the  command  which  he  had  received 
concerning  Amalek,  and  the  kingdom  was  t;iken  from  him),  so  will  it  happen 
to  me,  and  wliy  then  am  I  thus  wise  more  than  he  1  Then  I  said  in  my 
heart,  that  this  truly  is  vanity,  and  there  is  nothing  excei)t  the  decree  of  the 
word  of  Jehovah. 

(16)  For  to  the  wise  man,  with  the  fool,  there  is  no  remem- 
brance forever ;  because  that  long  ago,  (in  days  which  are  to 
come),  every  one  will  have  been  forgotten.  And  —  how  dieth 
the  wise  man  like  the  fool ! 

For  there  is  no  remembrance  to  the  wise,  with  the  fool,  in  the  world  to 


§  7.     ECC.    II.    AVITII    TARGUM.  97 

come;  and  after  the  death  of  a  man,  tliat  whicli  was  lon^^  a;:o  in  liis  lime, 
(when  tlic  days  sliall  eomc  which  will  he  after  him),  even  all  will  he  discov- 
ered. Then  why  do  the  sons  of  men  say,  that  the  end  of  the  righteous  is 
like  the  end  of  the  wicked  .' 

(17)  Tiien  I  luited  life  ;  for  the  deed?  that  are  done  under  the 
sun  were  odious  to  nie  ;  for  all  is  vanity  and  wortldess  eHort. 

Then  I  hated  all  of  saddetiing  life,  hecause  evil  is  njion  me,  even  the  evil 
work  which  is  done  against  the  sons  of  men  under  heaven,  in  this  world; 
because  all  is  vanity  and  crushing  of  spirit. 

(18)  Yea,  I  liated  all  the  toil  which  I  had  performed  under 
the  sun,  because  I  must  leave  it  to  the  man  who  sliall  come  after 
me. 

Yea.  I  liatcd  all  the  toil  which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun.  in  thi? 
world,  because  I  nnist  leave  it  to  KehoI)oani,  my  son,  who  will  come  after 
me;  and  Jeroboam,  his  servant  will  come,  and  will  take  out  of  his  hands  the 
ten  tribes,  and  possess  half  of  the  kingdom. 

(19)  And  who  knoweth  whether  he  will  be  a  wise  man  or  a 
fool  ?  And  yet  he  will  have  power  over  all  my  toil  which  I  have 
performed,  and  on  which  I  have  exercised  my  sagacity  under  the 
sun.     This  too  is  vanity. 

And  who  knoweth  whether  he  will  be  a  wise  man  or  a  fool,  viz.  the  king 
who  will  come  after  me?  And  yet  he  will  have  power  over  all  the  toil  that 
I  have  performed  in  this  world,  and  over  all  which  I  have  acquired  by  my 
sagacity  under  the  sun.  in  this  world.  And  I  was  confounded  in  my  mind, 
and  I  said  again  :  This  too  is  vanity. 

(20)  Then  T  turned  to  make  my  heart  despair  in  respect  to  all 
the  toil  whicli  I  liad  })ertbrmed  under  the  sun. 

Then  I  turned  to  make  my  heart  despair  respecting  the  toil  to  acquire, 
which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun;  and  because  that  I  had  been  saga- 
cious to  make  preparation  under  the  sun,  in  tliis  world. 

(21)  For  there  is  a  man,  who  has  toiled  with  sagacity,  and 
with  intelligence,  and  with  dexterity,  and  to  a  man  who  has 
never  toiled  for  it  must  he  leave  his  })ortion:  This  too  is  vanity, 
and  a  sore  evil. 

For  there  is  a  man,  who  has  toiled  with  wisdom,  and  with  intelligence,  and 
with  justice,  and  he  dicth  without  children  ;  and  to  the  man  who  has  not  toiled 
for  it,  must  he  give  it  to  be  his  portion :  This  is  vanity  and  a  great  evil. 

9 


98  §  7.   ECC.   II.    WITH  TARGUM. 

(22)  For  what  is  there  for  a  man  in  all  his  toil  and  strenuous 
efforts  of  his  heart,  which  he  has  performed  under  the  sun  ? 

For  what  is  there  useful  to  a  man,  as  to  his  toil  and  the  worryinj^  of  his 
heart,  which  he  has  toiled  for  under  the  sun,  in  the  piesent  world  ? 

(23)  For  all  his  days  are  grievous,  and  his  employment  har- 
assing ;  even  by  night  his  heart  is  not  quiet. 

For  all  his  days  are  grievou^!,  and  his  business  makes  velicmcnt  his  indig- 
nation; even  by  night  he  sleeps  not  because  of  the  solicitude  of  his  heart. 
Truly  this  is  vanity ! 

(24)  There  is  nothing  better  for  a  man,  than  that  he  should 
eat  and  drink,  and  enjoy  good  in  his  toil ;  even  this  I  have  seen 
to  be  from  the  hand  of  God. 

There  is  nothing  which  is  comely  for  man,  except  that  he  eat  and  drink 
and  make  his  soul  to  enjoy  good  before  the  sons  of  men,  that  he  may  perform 
the  commandments,  and  walk  in  the  ways  which  are  right  before  him,  that  it 
may  be  well  with  him  on  account  of  his  toil;  yea,  this  have  I  seen,  that  when 
a  man  prospers  in  this  world,  it  is  from  the  hand  of  God  that  this  is  decreed 
to  be  unto  him. 

(25)  For  who  can  eat,  and  who  can  enjoy  himself  more  than  I  ? 

For  who  is  he  that  will  bestow  laI)or  on  the  matters  of  the  Law,  and  who 
is  the  man  that  has  solicitude  concerning  the  great  day  of  judgment  which  is 
to  come,  more  than  1 1 

(2G)  For  to  the  man  who  is  well-pleasing  in  his  sight,  hath 
he  o-iven  sagacity,  intelligence,  and  enjoyment ;  but  to  the  sinner 
hath  he  given  the  task  of  gathering  and  amassing,  that  it  may  be 
given  to  him  who  is  well-pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.  This  is 
vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

But  to  the  man  whose  works  are  ujiright  before  Jehovah,  hath  he  given 
■wisdom  and  knowledge  in  this  world,  and  joy  with  the  righteous  in  the  world 
which  is  to  come;  but  to  the  man  who  is  a  sinner  hath  he  given  a  grievous 
task,  to  amass  riches,  and  to  heap  up  many  posse-^sions,  that  they  may  be 
taken  from  him,  and  given  to  the  man  who  is  well-pleasing  in  the  sight  of 
God ;  surely  this  is  vanity  to  the  sinner  and  a  crushmg  of  his  spirit ! 

From  even  a  slight  comparison  of  the  Talmudic  version  with 
the  original  Heb.,  it  is  evident  that  the  translator  meant  to  act 
the  paraphrast  or  commentator,  as  well  as  the  Targumist.  Most 
of  the  additions  consist  of  minute  specifications  of  particulars,  e.  g. 


§  7.  Ecc.  ir.  M'lTii  TARGUM.  99 

as  in  V.  4,  the  siini)le  word  c^na,  Iiouses,  and  again  in  v.  5  the 
words  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds^  are  expanded  into  long 
detail  derived  from  history  or  tradition.  Besides  this,  many 
clauses  are  added  throughout,  for  tlie  sake  of  ex})lanation,  and 
sometimes  to  guard  the  reader  against  assigning  to  a  word  or  a 
phrase  a  wrong  sense.  Thus,  after  the  declaration  of  the  text  in 
V.  11,  that  there  is  no  profit  under  the  sun,  the  Targumist  adds: 
But  there  is  a  perfect  reicard  for  my  worls  in  the  world  to  come. 
This  is  a  s[)ecimen  of  the  Jlbieinexegesiren  or  interpreting  into 
the  text,  rather  than  showing  what  the  text  of  itself  means. 
But  tliis  is  not  a  practice  limited  to  the  Rabbins ;  for  it  has  come 
down  to  the  present  hour,  and  is  exhibited  in  all  our  homiletic 
commentaries.  Where  the  matter  thus  added  is  good  and  true, 
there  is  no  special  objection  to  it  in  this  species  of  commentary, 
provided  the  writers  do  not  claim  for  their  additions  the  same 
authority  which  the  original  text  has.  But  this  is  too  often  the  case. 

One  feature  of  the  proper  Midrash  is  wanting  in  this  Targum. 
"What  I  mean  is,  that  it  does  not  launch  forth  into  tlie  great  abyss 
of  vjtovnia,  i.  e.  an  under  ov  secondary,  occult,  figurative,  and  sym- 
holic  meaning.  We  find  a  leaning  towards  this,  as  to  some  of  the 
dilucidating  particulars  ;  e.  g.  when,  in  v.  5,  the  Targumist  men- 
tions "  the  aromatic  trees  which  the  sprites  and  demons  brought 
to  Solomon  from  India."  Bordering  on  this  will  be  found  the 
pregnant  meaning  assigned  to  the  simple  text  in  vs.  15,  18.  The 
translator  anxiously  watches  over  every  expression  which  might 
seem  to  be  at  vjiriance  with  orthodoxy.  E.  g.  where  (v.  14)  Cohe- 
leth  declares  that  one  "  and  tlie  same  destiny  awaits  all  men," 
both  wise  and  foolish,  the  Targumist  adds,  that  this  will  happen, 
provided  the  wise  man  does  not  pray,  and  avert  the  decreed  evil 
from  the  world  when  the  retribution  shall  come ;  a  condition  and 
mode  of  escape  not  provided  for  by  the  original  autlior. 

Among  other  things,  the  writer  (as  usual  among  the  Rabbins) 
betrays  his  ignorance  of  historical  geograpliy.  He  represents  (v.  4) 
Solomon  as  planting  vineyards  in  Jahneh,  a  place  on  the  INIediter- 
ranean  sea  belonging  to  the  Philistines,  until  some  200  years  later 
than  Solomon's  time,  and  taken  from  tlicm  by  U/ziah  about  800 
B.  C.     But  this  is  in  good  keeping  with  Rabbinic  geography. 

Diffuse  as  this  Targumist  is,  on  the  chapter  before  us,  it  is 
nothing  in  comparison  with  what  he  has  written  on   Canticles- 


100  §  8.   MODERN  VERSIONS. 

There,  as  Jerome  says  of  Origen,  he  has  sailed  cum  pleno  velo. 
On  the  words  Song  of  Songs  he  has  a  full  octavo  page,  giving  an 
account  of  nine  other  Songs  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is 
easy  to  see,  what  latitude  a  writer  of  his  MidrasMc  spirit  would 
take,  in  paraphrasing  such  a  work  as  the  Canticles.  But  even 
here  again,  he  has  his  rivals  in  modern  as  well  as  ancient  days. 

The  Targumist  rarely  betrays  an  ignorance  of  the  Heb.  text. 
Yet  in  a  few  cases,  he  seems  to  have  been  in  total  darkness  ;  e.  g. 
in  V.  8,  ni'n'r)  irrnr ,  wife  and  wives,  which  he  renders,  warm  baths 
atid  baths  with  siphoyisfor  tepid  and  hot  water ;  wdiich  is  hardly 
less  ridiculous,  however,  than  many  other  ancient  and  modern 
translations  of  the  clause.  The  Sept.  version  has  some  more 
resemblance  to  a  possible  meaning  of  the  Heb.  original,  viz. 
oivoxoov  'Aul  oivoioag,  i.  e.  a  butler  and  female  butlers ;  deriving 
n^'J  from  riTi ,  to  pour  out ;  for  reading  the  text  without  vowels, 
they  read  the  word  nTd  without  a  Daghesh  in  "n.  Jerome  has 
another  guess,  viz.  scyphos  et  urceos,  glasses  and  pitchers.  The 
Syriac  and  Arabic  follow  in  the  track  of  the  Septuagint.  It  is 
but  a  short  time,  indeed,  since  the  words  in  question  were  con- 
sidered as  presenting  a  problem  not  to  be  solved.  Hitzig  has 
made  them  quite  plain. 

Mixed,  however,  with  a  few  guesses  of  a  similar  character  scat- 
tered here  and  there,  are  many  spirited  renderings  of  the  Heb.,  in 
cases  where  translation  is  not  an  easy  task.  If  any  one  wishes 
to  learn  the  genius  of  the  later  Jewish  Targums,  this  on  Coheleth 
may  be  recommended  to  him,  as  affording  a  fair  specimen.  It  is 
easy  to  be  read,  with  the  aid  given  by  the  London  Polyglott,  pro- 
vided the  reader  is  somewhat  versed  in  the  Chaldee  dialect.  The 
idiom  is  thoroughly  Chaldaeo-Rabbinic. 


§  8.   Modern  Versions. 

Among  the  Latin  ones,  Arias  Montanus,  the  literalist,  whose 
version  is  mixed  with  the  Hebrew,  in  tlie  London  Polyglott,  may 
sometimes  be  of  service  to  the  learner.  Among  the  best  older 
versions  is  that  of  Junius  and  Tremellius.  Dathe's,  more  recent, 
has  some  good  qualities ;  and  so  has  the  version  of  I.  F.  Schel- 
ling,  180G. 

Amonof  the  German  versions,  that  of  Knobel  and  of  De  Wette 


§  9.     COMMENTATOIIS.  101 

are  entitled  to  special  preeminence  ;  both  of  them  made  from  a 
familiar  acJiiiaiiitaiice  with  the  Hebrew.  Ilitzig  and  lleiligstedt, 
in  their  conmientaries,  have  translated  the  greater  portion  of  the 
book,  although  in  a  fragmentary  manner.  In  both  will  be  found 
some  happy  expressions  of  the  spirit  of  the  original ;  but  most  of 
all  in  Ilitzig.  The  last-named  writer  possesses  a  knowledge  of 
the  Hebrew  which  seems  to  me  quite  rare,  notwithstanding  the 
many  tine  Hebrew  scholars  which  Germany  atlbrds.  De  Wette, 
whose  knowledge  was  of  the  highest  cast,  does  not  appear  ever 
to  have  given  himself  very  seriously  to  the  study  of  Coheleth. 
Hence  his  somewhat  barren  chapter  on  this  book,  in  his  Einlei- 
tung,  §  282  seq. ;  and  hence  he  was  less  fitted  to  render  Coheleth 
with  the  best  skill,  than  either  Knobel  or  Hitzig. 

1  know  of  no  English  version,  lately  made,  which  has  any 
special  claim  on  our  attention.  Our  common  English  version  is 
substantially  good  ;  but  there  are  passages  in  Coheleth,  which 
were  beyond  the  critical  reach  and  power  of  the  translators,  at 
the  period  wdien  it  was  made.  I  would  fain  hope  that  the  ver- 
sion given  below,  will  more  accurately  represent  the  original  text, 
and  specially  in  difficult  passages. 


§  9.    Commentators. 

I  deem  it  useless  to  aim  at  making  a  universal  list  of  them. 
My  design  extends  only  to  commentaries  critical  for  the  most 
part ;  and  even  of  these  I  shall  mention  only  a  few,  because,  in 
the  present  state  of  Hebrew  studies,  only  a  few  are  worthy  of 
particular  consideration  and  study  by  him,  who  is  in  pursuit  of 
critical  knowledge. 

I.  Ancient  Commentators. 

(1)  Gregorii  Thaumaturgi  Metaphrasis  in  Ecc  Salom.  in 
Greg.  Nazianz  0pp.  I,  p.  749  seq.     Par.  1G09. 

(2)  Gregorii  Nysseni  Accurata  in  Ecc.^  Narratio,  Tom.  I,  p. 
373seq.ed,  Par.  1615. 

(3)  Olympiodori  in  Ecc.  Comm.  in  Biblioth.  patr.  max.  Tom. 
XVIII,  p.  480,  seq. 

(4)  Oecumenii  Catena  in  Ecc.  1532. 

(5)  Hieronymi  Comm.  in  Ecc.  0pp.  Tom.  II.. 

9* 


102  §  9.     COMMENTATORS. 

These,  with  the  exception  of  Jerome,  must  not  be  read  with 
the  expectation  of  much  critical  aid.  In  the  main,  it  is  more  a 
matter  of  curiosity  than  of  usefulness  to  spend  time  upon  them. 

11.  Older  Protestant  Commentators. 

(6)  Lutheri  Ecc.  Salomonis,  0pp.  Tom.  Ill,  1532. 

(7)  Merceri  Comm.  in  Job.;  Ecc.  etc.  1651. 

(8)  Grotii  Annott.  in  V.  Test.  Opp. 

(9)  Rambachii  Notae  Uberiores  in  J.  H.  Michaelis's  edit,  of 
his  Annott.  Uberiores  in  Hagiographos,  1729. 

(10)  Clerici  Vet.  Test.  Libri.  Hagiog.  1721. 

(11)  J.  D.  Michaelis  Poetischer  Entwurf  des  Predigerbuchs 
Salomo,  Getting.  1762. 

(12)  Doderlein  Scholia  in  Lib.  V.  Test.  1784. 

(13)  Van  der  Palm,  Ecclesiastes,  Lug.  Bat.  1784. 

Here  and  there  some  good  notes  will  be  found  in  most  of 
these.  Such  men  as  Grotius,  Mercier,  and  Le  Clerc,  seldom 
wrote  without  suggesting  something  critically  valuable. 

III.  Recent  Commentators. 

(14)  Umbreit  Koheleths  Seelenkampf.  1818. 

(15) Koheleth  Scepticus  de  summo  Bono,  1820. 

(16)  Kaiser  Coheleth  (as  a  curiosity). 

(17)  Rosenmiilleri  Scholia  in  V.  Test.  1830. 

(18)  Koster,  das  Buch.  Hiob  und  Prediger,  1831. 

(19)  Knobel  Comm.  ijber  Coheleth,  1836. 

(20)  Hitzig  der  Prediger  Salomo's  1847,  in  Exeget.  Hand- 
buch  des  Alten  Test.  Band  VII. 

(21)  Heiligstedt,  in  Maureri  Comm.  gramm.  et  crit.  Vol.  IV, 
1848. 

Nos.  1 9  and  20  are  in  reality  original  works,  the  fmit  of  much 
and-  deep  critical  investigation.  Knobel  led  the  way  in  this. 
Hitzig  followed,  although  not  exactly  in  his  steps.  The  work  of 
the  latter  comprises  but  little  more  than  100  pages  ;  but  it  is  full 
of  remarks  disclosing  a  most  intimate  critical  acquaintance  with 
the  Ileb.  language  ;  and  the  author  aims,  more  than  any  writer 
to  whom  I  have  had  access,  to  trace  the  connection  of  thought  and 
reasoning  in  the  book,  and  with  more  success.     Bating  his  strong 


§  9.     COMMENTATORS.  103 

neological  tendencies,  his  book  is  worthy  of  thorough  study  and 
high  regard. 

The  more  recent  work  of  Ileiligstedt  has  some  good  traits. 
He  pursues  criticism  grammatically.  But  his  work  is  lacking  in 
judgment  as  to  the  course  of  thought  in  Coheleth  ;  and  it  contains 
some  striking  conceits  in  respect  to  a  part  of  the  dijjicult  pas- 
sages.    It  is  in  general  very  perspicuous  and  easily  understood. 

In  a  critical  point  of  view,  Knobel  and  Ilitzig  take  the  lead, 
and  are  worth  all  the  rest  of  the  list. 

Of  the  preaching  or  homiletic  connnentaries,  there  are  many ; 
and  some  valuable  English  ones.  But  they  do  not  come  within 
my  present  scope.  The  preaching  pastor  may  consult  some  of 
them  to  advantage  on  ethical  subjects ;  but  he  must  not  expect 
critical  and  hermeneutical  aid  from  them.  A  work  of  a  high 
critical  character,  on  this  book,  is  as  yet  a  desideratum  in  English. 
It  was  with  a  hope  of  doing  something  to  advance  a  critical 
knowledge  of  the  book  among  us,  that  the  present  work  has  been 
undertaken. 


COMMENTARY  ON  ECCLESIASTES. 


Chap.  T. 
1.   Vs.  1—11. 


The  londinfr  and  predominant  dcsipn  of  the  book  is  to  showthe  vanity  of  all 
earthlji olijects.  ptirmiis,  anil  disii/ris.  The  Itook  begins  and  ends  witli  the  solemn 
assevonuion,  that  all  is  vanity.  This  principal  theme  is  never  really  lost 
sight  of  by  the  writer,  whatever  may  be  his  ajij^arcnt  digressions  from  it. 
These,  it  must  be  confessed,  apjjcar  at  first  view  to  be  somewhat  numerous, 
but  when  their  connection  and  design  arc  strictly  scrutinized,  the  number  is 
greatly  reduced.  Ever  and  anon  the  writer  returns  expressly  to  his  leading 
theme,  by  repeating  the  impressive  declaration  that  all  is  vanity.  Other  objects, 
indeed,  he  has  in  view,  besides  e.«tablisiiing  and  illustrating  his  main  point; 
but  of  these  I  have  spoken  more  particularly  in  my  account  of  the  plan  of  the 
book  (§  2),  in  the  Introduction.  Our  present  purpose  is  merely  to  state  the 
course  of  thought  or  argument,  exhibited  in  this  first  paragraph  or  section  of 
the  work. 

First  the  title  of  the  book,  as  usual,  is  given,  v.  1.  Next  comes  the  general 
proposition,  which  covers  the  whole  ground  of  the  work:  Vanity  of  vani- 
ties ;  ALL  IS  VANITY.  Then  follows  an  illustration  of  this,  by  presenting 
the  following  course  of  thought :  '  Man,  by  all  his  eflbrts,  can  attain  to  no 
stable  and  lasting  condition  of  enjoyment ;  for  there  can  be  no  stability,  where 
one  generation  is  constantly  passing  from  the  stage  of  action  or  enjoyment, 
and  another  is  coming  upon  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  world  in  which  he 
lives  is  ever  and  always  the  same.  The  occurrences  of  the  natural  world  all 
take  place  in  one  established  and  continual  round,  from  which  there  is  no 
departure  or  variation.  The  sun  always  rises  and  sets  in  the  same  manner; 
the  wind  continually  goes  round  its  circuits  in  the  same  way.  The  rivers  flow 
into  the  sea  without  filling  it,  and  always  are  fiowing  back  again  to  the  source 
whence  they  originated.  Language  would  fail  to  describe  all  of  the  like 
occurrences.  They  are  so  numerous,  that  no  eye  can  ever  be  satisfied  by  a  full 
sight ;  nor  ear  so  filled,  that  no  more  remains  to  be  heard.  Yet  in  all  this 
countless  variety  of  things  there  is  nothing  new,  i.  e.  no  betterment,  no  im- 
provement, no  change.  Any  one  who  thinks  that  any  new  thing  occurs,  will 
find  himself  mistaken.  There  is  the  same  unchangeable  and  ceaseless  round 
of  things  forever  repeated,  so  that  no  new  sources  of  pleasure  can  be  hope- 
fully looked  for  in  this  (piarter,  vs.  3 — 11. 


106  Chap.  I.  1. 

From  this  introductory  statement  it  appears,  that  the  writer  had  in  view 
some  propositions  of  a  general  nature.  These  consist  mainly  of  two  things ; 
first,  that  man  can  find  no  abiding  good  in  the  present  world,  because  of  his 
own  frail  and  perishable  nature  ;  and  secondly,  that  he  cannot  secure  happi- 
ness by  making  any  changes  in  the  world,  or  in  the  state  of  things,  since  they 
are  fixed  and  immutable,  and  have  been  so  ordered  and  arranged  by  a  Power 
above  him.  From  the  world  without,  therefore,  he  cannot  expect  to  derive 
any  new  source  of  enjoyment ;  for  the  ceaseless  round  and  repetition  of  the 
same  occurrences  leave  no  room  to  hope  that  any  change  will  be  made  from 
the  present  to  a  better  state  — no  room  to  hope  that  anything  new  can  occur,  to 
add  to  his  outwanl  means  of  happiness.  Thus  he  finds  himself  helpless  and 
hopeless,  because  of  his  own  frail,  mutable,  and  perishable  condition,  and 
because  the  order  of  things  without,  under  which  sadness  and  suffering  have 
been  and  are  his  lot,  has  been  rendered  fixed  and  immutable  by  that  Power 
which  directs  and  controls  the  universe. 

Such  is  the  general  course  of  thought  in  §  1.  We  come  now  to  the  exami- 
nation of  particulars. 

(V.  1)  tnbrip  *i';in'n,  lit.  the  words  of  Coheleth,  constitute  the 
general  title  of  the  book  at  large,  '^'ns'n  does  not  mean  doctrines 
or  narrations  specifically  considered,  but  things  said,  or  words  in 
a  generic  sense.  Thus  we  have  the  words  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  1:1); 
the  words  of  Amos  (1:1);  and  the  title  to  the  book  of  the  Chroni- 
cles is  S'^^^ti  'I'nn'n ,  i.  e.  words  in  respect  to  the  times.  We  might 
well  translate  :  sayings  of  Coheleth. 

rqrip  has  the  form  of  the  Part.  act.  fern,  in  Kal.  Knobel 
(Comm.  p.  8)  asserts  that  ^^  concrete  nouns  are  converted  into 
abstract  ones,  by  appending  a  fem.  ending."  This  he  represents 
as  a  universal  principle  ;  and  therefore  he  extends  it  to  the  Part, 
pres.  as  well  as  to  other  classes  of  words.  According  to  this  rule, 
then,  ri^fip  must  of  course  here  mean  preaching ;  and  the  abstract 
being  put  for  the  concrete,  (which  indeed  is,  in  itself,  a  thing  very 
common),  he  thus  makes  out  the  signification  ^:)rea<7/?^r.  So  Gese- 
nius,  in  his  Thesaurus.  But  the  application  of  this  principle  to  the 
Part.  pres.  is  not  so  easily  to  be  made  out.  Of  the  five  examples 
of  a  fem.  ending  which  designates  an  abstract  meaning,  as  pro- 
duced by  Knobel,  all  but  one  come  from  masc.  adjectives ;  as,  e.  g. 
nb^s;  folly,  from  h^^  foolish,  etc.  t^^;:!;^  is  the  only  Part.  pres. 
form  to  which  he  adverts  ;  but  even  this  does  not  prove  the  point 
in  question,  for  in  Ex.  26  :  4, 10,  where  it  is  employed,  its  mean- 
ing is  socia  and  not  the  abstract  conjunctio.  Possibly,  however, 
nn^in  abomination,  (which  is  a  frequent  word),  and  ntn  in  Is.  28  : 


CiiAr.  I.  1.  107 

lo==n!iTn  in  V.  18,  may  support  the  allegation  before  us  in  a 
modified  shape,  viz.  that  sometimes  the  aetive  Part.  fem.  has  an 
abstract  meaning.  Beyond  this  we  eannot  safely  go ;  for  sueh 
occurrences  are  very  rare.  But  leaving  this  view  of  the  word  as 
doubtfully  established  in  such  a  way,  we  may  illustrate  it  more 
satisfactorily  by  another  view.  The  Hebrews  were  accustomed, 
in  some  cases,  to  designate  men  by  the  fem.  name  of  the  office 
which  they  held  ;  e.  g.  nnQ  jwaefect,  Neh.  5:18.  12  :  2G.  Mai.  1: 
8  al.  ;  r:3  colleague,  Ez.  4:  7,  (frequent  in  Chald.),  r-iEO  scribe, 
prop,  name  in  Ez.  2  :  bb.  Neh.  7  :  57,  and  so  r"i=2,  Ez.  2  :  57. 
Neh.  7  :  59.  Such  a  usage  in  Arabic  is  very  frequent;  as  rs'^bn 
Caliph,  r;5^?n  Creator,  and  so  (in  fern,  forms)  advanced  age  for 
old  man,  story  for  sforg-teller,  care  for  curator,  service  for  slave, 
and  the  like.  In  some  words,  both  the  mase.  and  fem.  forms  are 
employed  in  the  same  sense,  as  Aga  and  Agath,  signifying  de- 
fender, reprover,  etc.  The  general  principle  receives  confirmation 
from  other  languages.  Homer  calls  Oceanus  {^tdSv  ytveaig,  II. 
xiv.  201.  302.  Euripides  puts  uyt^iovtvuu  {government)  for  ijyeftcov 
governor,  Phoen.  1492  ;  and  vv^qiavfia  (espousal)  for  vv^cfr^  bride, 
Troad.  435.  So  in  all  the  modern  languages  of  Europe,  we  find 
such  words  as  majesty,  excellency,  Jnghness,  honor,  grace,  magnifi- 
cence, (all  feminines  and  abstracts),  designating  persons  of  a  par- 
ticular rank  or  office.  Even  we  republicans  call  our  governor  His 
Excellency.  It  need  not,  and  should  not,  seem  strange  to  us,  then, 
when  we  find  the  word  rbrip  employed  to  designate  preacher. 

But  what  means  preacher  ?  The  root  or  stem-word,  bnp ,  means 
io  assemble,  to  summon  together;  but  it  is  spoken  only  in  reference  to 
persons.  Mostly,  it  designates  summoning  them  together  for 
religious  purposes  ;  and  the  assembly  thus  brought  together,  is 
called bn;^  ,  and  the  discourse  nbn;?.  Ilitzig  says  (Comm.  P^cc.l: 
1),  that  "  r'^ji;;:'  cannot  possibly  mean  preaching  in  the  abstract ;" 
to  which  (omitting  the  word  possibly)  1  should  fully  assent.  But 
preaching  as  an  act  it  may  mean,  by  a  little  defiection  from  its 
ordinary  sense.  Tlie  Latin  concionatrix,  by  which  it  has  often 
been  translated,  and  the  barliaious  Greek  -wovd  ty.y.).i,(7id(77(}ia,  in 
the  Venet.  Grace,  are  attempts  to  give  the  exact  shade  of  the  lite- 
ral meaning;  and  in  theory  they  are  correct  tran>lations.  Those 
who  thus  translate,  however,  refer  the  word  (as  fem.)  to  wisdom 
as  the  preacher.     Tliat  the  discourse  in  the  present  case  (^"-"n)  is 


108  Chap.  I.  1. 

not  like  a  modeT'n  sermon,  is  sufficiently  plain.    Equally  plain  is  it, 
that  what  is  said  is  not  supposed  to  be  addressed  to  a  mass  of  men 
assembled.   Nearly  always  the  person  addressed  is  of  the  singular 
number;  e.  g.  "  Keep  tJiy  foot,  when  thou  goest  to  the  house  of  God," 
"  Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth,  etc."    But  still,  as  the  book 
is  designed  for   general  reading,   and  the  writer  often  warns, 
reproves,  and  instructs,  he  might  not  unaptly  call  \\imse\^ preacher. 
So  far  as  Solomon  is  concerned,  we  know  only  of  one  occasion 
on  which  he  addressed  the  great  bn;^ ,  viz.  at  the  dedication  of  the 
temple,  2  Chron.  6  :  1  seq.    His  proverbs,  and  songs,  and  botanical 
and  zoological  treatises,  are  mentioned  in  2  K.  4 :  30  seq. ;  but 
nothing  is   said  of  his  preaching.     The  name,  Thr^p,  was  not 
given  subsequently  to  the  author  because  of  his  writing  the  book 
so  called,  but  he  had  the  name  already  when  the  book  was  begin- 
ning to  be  written,  Ecc.  1:1.     If  Solomon  himself  wrote  the  book, 
w^e  can  hardly  make  out  a  reason  why  he  should  style  himself 
Coheleth ;   but  if,  (as  seems  to  be  nearly  certain),  it  was  w^ritten 
at  a  later  period, (see  §  5.  Introd.),  and  Solomon's  views  and  feel- 
ings were  presented  by  the  writer  to  the  consideration  of  the 
reader,  it  w^as  natural  enough  for  the  writer  to  call  him  Coheleth, 
in  reference  to  what  he   had   uttered.     At  any  rate,  the  Sept. 
Greek  i-AyXtjaiaaTrig,  Jerome's  Latin  Concionator,  Luther's  Pred- 
iger,  as  well  as  our  English  Preacher,  are  generally  acquiesced 
in,  at  present,  as  the  appropriate  meaning  of  the  word.     That  the 
meaning  is  masc,  is  clear  from  the  fact,  that  in  all  cases  the  masc. 
verb  is  associated  with  it ;  for  7  :  27,  nbn'p  n^ix  is  no  exception, 
since  it  should  be  read  Thr\pT\  Tcx ,  as  it  is  in  12  :  8.  That  Cohe- 
leth himself  is  represented  as  a  king,  is  clear  from  1 :  12. 

The  various,  and  some  of  them  even  whimsical,  meanings 
given  by  many  to  this  word,  need  not  be  formally  discussed  and 
refuted.  Such  is  collector,  viz.  of  sayings  and  maxims  ;  whereas 
htrp  means  only  to  collect  men.  Then  we  have  assejnhly,  academy, 
i.  e.  a  literary  consessus ;  which  meaning  is  defended  by  men  of 
name,  as  Diklerlein,  Paulus,  Bauer,  Bertholdt,  Hartmann,  and 
others.  But  1  :  12  decides  this  matter;  for  according  to  this 
exposition,  Solomon  is  made  gravely  to  address  his  consessus,  by 
saying :  "  I,  O  Academy,  w^as  king  in  Jerusalem."  Did  tliey 
need  to  be  told  this?  And  then,  icas  king  —  when?  Solomon 
was  kins  to  the  end  of  his  life,  and  could  never  tell  them  he  was 


CiiAi'.  L  1.  109 

once  Iving,  which  woiihl  iin{)ly  of  course  tliat  lie  is  now  no  longer 
so.  Next  comes  senex,  the  old  man,  from  the  corresponding  Ara- 
bic verb  which,  among  other  things,  signifies  to  f/row  ynnj.  But 
why  go  to  the  Arabic  in  this  case ;  above  all,  why  go  there,  when 
we  can  find  in  senex  nothing  specially  appropriate  to  the  book  ? 
Once  more,  from  the  Arabic  bn;?,  in  the  sense  of  exaruil  cutiSf 
is  the  word  derived,  and  so  Coheleth  means  t/te  penitent,  who 
becomes  withered  in  skin  by  doing  penance  !  Zirkel  and  others 
assert,  however,  that  the  fern,  ending  is  given  by  Solomon  to 
Coheleth,  in  order  that  it  might  mark  gentleness  and  gracefulness 
in  his  speech  ;  (like  Voltaire  substituted  for  Arouet).  Others 
say  it  sprung  from  the  effeminacy  of  Solomon  in  his  old  age  ; 
others,  that  Solomon's  ghost  is  the  speaker,  and  that  the  fern, 
ending  is  given,  to  show  that  ghosts  have  no  specific  gender, 
(comp.  Matt.  22  :  30).  This  last  phantasy  comes  from  Augusti, 
Einl.  s.  242.  f.  Jahn  holds  the  r-  final  to  be  an  auxesis  to  the 
force  of  the  word  ;  for  the  like  is  often  the  case  in  Arabic.  But 
such  an  uvhiaig,  if  admitted,  would  strictly  mean  preaching  much, 
not  preeminent  preacher.  —  But  enough.  We  have  no  need  of 
gaessing,  in  the  present  case.  That  Coheleth  means  one  who 
addresses  serious  discourse  to  his  hearers,  or  rather  to  his  readers, 
is  sufficiently  plain.  This  too  is  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of 
the  book,  and  with  the  character  of  the  author ;  and  we  may 
therefore  acquiesce  in  it.  Happily,  we  are  not  often  called  upon, 
at  the  present  time,  to  notice  and  contend  against  such  })hantasie3 
as  have  just  been  brought  to  view.  Their  existence  shows  how 
unsafe  and  adventurous  it  is,  to  forsake  the  simple  principle  of 
grammatico-historical  intcrjjretation. 

Son  of  David  \\o\\V\  not  particularize  enough  for  the  writer's 
purpose,  for  David  had  many  sons.  Therefore  he  adds :  Kitig  in 
Jerusalem  ;  which  words  belong  to  David's  son,  and  not  to  him, 
for  they  are  epexegetical  of  Son  of  David.  But  why  King  in 
Jerusalem  ?  Solomon  himself,  if  he  wrote  the  book,  would  natu- 
rally say :  King  (f  Israel.  But  in  after  times,  when  there  were 
kings  over  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel,  who  were  of  a  separate  race, 
and  had  a  diflTerent  capital  (Samaria),  it  would  be  natural  to 
speak  of  a  Ileb.  king  either  as  belonging  to  Jerusalem,  or  else  to 
Samaria,  in  order  to  distinguish  accnratrly.  That  the  writer  of 
the  book  has  here  spoken  in  the  usual  manner  which  prevailed  at 
10 


110  Chap.  I.  2. 

a  period  later  than  that  of  Solomon,  seems  plain.  And  as  only 
one  of  David's  sons  ever  reigned  at  Jerusalem,  Solomon  is  of 
course  meant  here. 

(2)  Vanity  of  vanities,  saith  the  preacher,  vanity  of  vanities !  iVU  is  vanity. 

Here  the  main  subject  of  the  book  is  at  once  announced.  Van- 
ity of  vanities  !  An  exclamation,  and  not  a  part  of  an  ordinary 
complete  sentence.  The  word  bnn  is  one  of  tlie  older  Segholates, 
retaining  its  original  Inf.  form.  In  Hebrew  this  is  rare,  the  com- 
mon Segholates  (such  as  bnn)  being  substituted  for  such  forms  ; 
Heb.  Gramm.  §  83. 11.  10.*  Like  to  bnn  are  -1x2,  ^xs,  etc. ;  but 
in  Syr.  and  Chald.  such  forms  are  the  usual  Segholates.  The 
unusual  form  in  Hebrew  seems  to  be  chosen  here  for  the  sake  of 
variety  in  diction,  inasmuch  as  the  plur.  d'^bnn  comes  from  the 
usual  bnn.  The  root  bnn  means  to  breathe;  hence  bnn  breath, 
then  vapor,  and  lastly,  in  a  tropical  sense,  nothingness^  vanity,  i.  e. 
that  which  is  altogether  momentary  and  unsubstantial.  The 
meaning  of  the  whole  j)hrase  is,  most  absolute  or  extreme  vanity ; 
see  Gramm.  §  117.  2.  —  In  rbn'p  n-2x  we  see  that  the  noun  is 
used  as  a  mascuUne.  —  The  repetition  of  vanity  of  vanities  gives 
the  highest  intensity  possible  to  the  idea  expressed.  The  extent 
of  its  application  next  follows. 

Vsrn  must  not  be  regarded  here  as  =  the  Greek  to  ndv,  the 
universe,  as  Rosenm.  and  others  affirm ;  but  it  includes  all  the 
eflPorts  of  men  and  all  which  befalls  them.  In  other  words,  it 
includes  all  that  is  done  or  happens  under  the  sun,  as  the  book 
everywhere  expresses  it;  see  vs.  3,  9,  14.  2  :  14,  17 — 20,  etc., 
passim.  Neither  divine  operations,  nor  the  great  objects  of 
nature,  are  asserted  to  be  vanity.  In  respect  to  the  work  of  God, 
the  author  never  criticizes  this,  nor  finds  it  to  be  defective.  It  is 
the  doings,  purposes,  designs,  wishes,  and  strivings  of  men,  which 
he  pronounces  to  be  vanity,  because  all  these  never  secure  solid 
and  permanent  happiness.  —  The  article  is  prefixed  to  ^3,  be- 
cause it  comprises  a  universality  of  efforts  and  events,  a  tout  ensem- 
ble ;  and  so  it  corresi)ond8  with  the  Greek  article  before  nag  in  a 
like  case.  —  ^nn  for  hyq ,  because  of  the  pause-accent,  Gramm. 

*  The  Grammar  referred  to,  where  no  title  is  given,  is  Roediger's  edition  of 
Gesenius's  Heb.  Grammar,  translated  by  M.  Stuart. 


Chap.  I.  3.  Ill 

§  20.  4.    Ill  this  last  clause  the  copula  (n;ri)  between  subject 
and  predicate  is,  as  usual  in  such  cases,  omitted  ;  Gr.  §  Ml- 

(3)  What  profit  is  there  to  iDan  by  all  his  toil,  uhich  he  hilioriously  pcr- 
formeth  under  the  sun  1 

Tiie  (luestiou  virtually  contains  the  strongest  kind  of  atlirina- 
tion,  that  there  is  no  profit.  In  other  words,  it  challenges  all 
men  to  show  that  there  is  any  profit.  And  if  none,  then  all  is 
vanity  indeed.  This  verse  also  shows  the  extent  of  the  ground 
which  bir;  of  the  preceding  verse  is  designed  to  cover.  —  For 
rr:  followed  by  a  Dagh.  conjunctive,  see  Lex.  it:,  Note  (b.)  at 
the  close. —  "pir";,  from  the  root  "n;;,  means  literally  remainder^ 
what  remains,  and  then  secondarily  gain,  profit. —  cnxb,  with 
the  article-vowel  under  b,  §  35.  B.  h.  Note  2  and  §  35.  1.  Here 
again  the  article  makes  the  word  denote  the  whole  race  of  men,  the 
genus  humanum,  like  our  word  mankind.  It  is  the  Dat.  of  appur- 
tenance ;  the  copula  being  omitted,  as  usual.  Or  we  may  call 
it  a  case  of  the  Gen.  made  by  prefixing  b ,  Gr.  §  113.  2.  —  In 
all  his  toil  is  a  literal  rendering  of  n"^":r-'-r2  ,  but  the  true  sense  of 
S  here  is  by,  on  account  of,  or  in  respect  to,  Lex.  2 ,  B.  10.  The 
usual  meaning  of  in  would  hardly  make  an  intelligible  sense 
here.  —  The  suff.  i",  appended  to  hiiv  ,  refers  to  D'lij ,  which  is  in 
the  sing,  number;  but  as  the  latter  noun  is  generic,  so  also  must 
the  sufi'.  be. 

b^"^"r  has  the  common  abridged  form  of  "rx  combined  with  it. 
The  N  of  the  pronoun  is  droj)[)ed,  because  of  its  feeble  sound,  and 
the  "^  assimilates  to  the  letter  which  follows  it,  and  is  expressed 
by  a  Dagh.  forte  in  that  letter.  No  book  in  the  Ileb.  Scriptures 
makes  such  a  use  of  this  abridged  form,  or  employs  it  with  any- 
thing of  the  like  frequency,  as  Cohcleth,  Early  cases  of  its  use 
are  rare,  and  mostly  somewhat  doubtful.  It  is  found  mainly  in 
Ecc,  Cant.,  and  some  of  the  later  Psalms.  Its  frequency  is  so  great 
in  Cohcleth,  that  it  even  reminds  one  of  the  Rabbinic,  and  is  one 
of  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  the  peculiar  diction  of  the 
book.  Tiie  "mperf.,  as  h'zv^  i  designates  continued,  repeated,  cus- 
tomary action  more  frequently  than  any  other  tense  ;  Gr.  §  125. 
4,  6.  The  Ileb.  much  oftener  than  our  own  language,  puts  a 
kindred  noun  after  a  verb  to  render  the  ex})ression  energetic. 
We  can  say  7'un  a  race,  fight  a  good  fight,  etc.,  but  our  hmits  are 


112  CiiAP.  I.  5. 

narrow  as  to  this  kind  of  diction.  On  the  contrary,  the  Hebrew 
extends  this  mode  of  expression  very  widely ;  as  b^v  hyj ,  l^hn 
•^bn ,  n^^  'p^'^ ,  etc.  To  avoid  saying  (as  the  Heb.  does)  toiled  a 
toil,  I  have  translated  by  toil  wliich  he  laboriously  performeth  — 
which  is  ad  sensum  although  not  ad  liieram ;  see  Gr.  §  135.  n.  1. 
Under  the  sun  occurs  only  in  Coheleth  ;  but  here  it  is  repeated 
some  twenty-five  times,  and  constitutes  a  marked  peculiarity  of 
the  book.  (See  p.  11,  for  a  list  of  the  cases).  We  convey  the 
same  idea  by  calling  things  sublunary  =  under  the  moon.  The 
Heb.  expression  is  more  striking  than  ours.  Earthly  or  worldly 
purposes,  actions,  and  events  are  designated  by  assigning  this 
predicate  to  tliem.  —  d^'j  for  ■d'2^; ,  because  of  the  pause-accent. 

(4)  [One]  generation  passeth  away,  and  [another]  generation  conicth:  and 
the  earth  abidcth  forever. 

The  Heb.  "^i^ ,  without  the  article,  is  equivalent  to  a  generation 
or  one  generation.  The  latter  is  the  preferable  English  here.  — 
tjbn  is  often  used  to  designate  departure,  going  away ;  and  X3 
(Part,  here)  means  coming  in  the  sense  of  entering  upon  the 
scene  of  action.  This  going  and  coming  shows  the  brevity  and 
vanity  of  human  life,  for  it  shows  that  there  is  nothing  of  the 
permanent  or  enduring  in  man.  Of  course  this  confirms  the 
preceding  verse,  which  denies  that  man  has  any  solid  and  lasting 
good  or  reward  in  the  present  world.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
earth  abideth  forever.  The  meaning  here  given  to  n'l'ci.' (Qamets 
before  pause)  is  by  no  means  unusual ;  see  Lex.  s.  v.  No.  2. 
All  three  of  the  participles  here  employed,  are  designedly  used 
to  express  continuance  of  action.  The  sentiment  is,  that  the  earth 
is  fixed  and  immutable,  admitting  no  changes  for  the  better,  and 
consequently  no  hopes  of  lightening  human  misery  by  such 
changes.  Man's  condition  in  the  world,  and  his  relation  to  it, 
must  ever  remain  the  same.  His  frailty  in  himself  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other  the  foreclosure  against  any  change  for 
the  better  in  the  things  without,  concur  to  show  that  he  can  find 
no  permanent  happiness  here.  Vs.  3  and  4  fall  back  upon,  or 
stand  related  to,  the  assertion  in  v.  2,  that  "  all  is  vanity." 

(5)  And  the  sun  rise'.h,  and  the  sun  sctteth,  and  to  its  phioe  it  hasteneth, 
where  it  ariseth. 

Here  i<3  (verb)  is  employed  in  a  sense  apparently  the  oppo- 


CnAP.  I.  6.  113 

site  of  tliat  in  the  vcr.'^o  above.  The  simple  fact  is,  that  occasion- 
ally the  verl)  ^^'z,  whose  usual  meaning  is  intrare,  tngredi,  is  also 
employed  in  tiie  general  sense  of  ire,  viz.  to  go  or  move  forward 
in  any  direction  ;  see  Lex.  Exactly  to  our  j)uri»ose,  is  its  mean- 
ing in  Gen.  15:  12.  Perhaps  (with  Knobel)  we  may  attribute 
its  use  here,  to  an  associated  idea  that  the  setting  sun  enters  (in- 
greditur)  its  subterraneous  dwelling,  viz.  the  ocean,  according  to 
the  view  of  the  Hebrews.  —  The  greater  distinctive  accent  on 
"iiaipq  is  not  well  placed  ;  for  this  word  is  intimately  connected 
with  rsr:; .  This  last  word  literally  means  to  pant,  e.  g.  as  one 
does  in  consequence  of  running  swiftly.  Figuratively  it  is  attri- 
buted to  the  sun,  in  his  race  from  the  place  of  setting  to  that  of 
rising,  in  order  that  he  may  be  ready  to  rise  again,  the  next 
morning.  I  have  given  in  my  version  the  real  meaning  which 
the  word  is  designed  here  to  express,  viz.  hasteneth  instead  of 
panteth.  The  imagery  is  vivid.  The  sun  must  make  great  haste 
(which  occasions  pantiiig),  in  order  to  return,  in  a  few  hours,  to 
the  i)lace  from  which  it  arose.  In  Avhat  way  the  ancient  Hebrews 
conceived  this  return  to  be  accomplished,  w^hether  by  going  round 
the  world,  or  under  it,  we  are  unable  to  say.  In  the  Targum  on 
this  verse  (Gth  century),  it  is  said,  that '  the  sun  goes  round  by 
the  side  of  the  north,  in  the  path  of  the  abyss.'  But  in  the  Heb. 
Scriptures  I  can  recall  no  passage  which  seems  to  designate  the 
common  views  of  the  ancient  Hebrew^s  on  this  subject.  It  must 
have  appeared  very  mysterious  to  a  thinking  man  among  them. 

Where  it  ariseth,  or  will  arise.  As  habitual  action  is  here  im- 
plied, the  former  is  the  preferable  version.  The  clause  is  relar 
tive,  and  nrx  is  imj)lied  before  nnii,  and  therefore  modifies  nd, 
making  it  to  mean  ivhere,  Gramm.  §  121.  3,  comp.  1.  Tim  present 
tense  is  formed  most  frequently  of  all,  in  this  book,  by  the  Part, 
pres.,  which  has  often  an  accompanying  })n>n()un,  as  here  x^n  n"i*T. 

(6)  The  wind  gocth  to  the  south,  and  turneth  al)oiit  to  the  north,  turning 
and  turninrj  it  j^oeth.  and  to  its  circuits  doth  the  wind  return. 

The  IIcl».  order  of  words  we  cannot  well  follow  hci-e  ;  for  we 
must  then  translate  :  Jt  gocfh  to  the  south,  and  tiinieth  altoKf  to  the 
north,  turning  turning  gueth  the  wind.  The  Part,  fp-n  does  not 
here  indicate  departure,  as  in  v.  1,  but  progrediens,  progressing  in 
any  direction.  Tarneth  about,  or  circuiteth,  im})lies  a  moving  of 
10* 


114  Chap.  I.  7. 

the  wind  through  the  intermediate  points,  from  the  south  round 
to  the  north.  But  why  these  two  points  rather  than  east  and 
west  ?  Evidently  because  the  sun's  rising  and  setting  in  the  east 
and  west  had  already  brought  them  to  view,  and  the  writer  did 
not  wish  to  repeat  the  same  points.  There  are  six  participles  in 
this  verse,  all  indicative  of  continued  successive  action.  —  nni  is 
here  employed  as  masc. ;  and  so  in  Ex.  10:  13.  Ps.  51  :  12. 
1  K.  19  :  11.  It  is  fem.  elsewhere,  nsinn  =  6  dvs(iO(;,  the  wind. 
The  repetition  of  nnio  gives  intensity  to  the  description  of  the 
turning,  representing  it  as  occurring  in  constant  succession. 

The  wind  returneth  to  its  circuits,  i.  e.  it  turns  until  it  reaches 
the  point  from  which  it  started,  and  then  goes  again  upon  the 
like  circuits.  In  other  words,  the  same  thing  is  repeated  over 
and  over  again  continually. 

(7)  All  the  streams  go  to  the  sea,  but  the  sea  is  not  full:  to  the  place 
where  the  streams  go,  thither  do  they  again  return. 

d"'bn5  is  of  wider  meaning  than  rivers.  It  means  runriing  or 
jiowing  water  in  streams  large  or  small.  Statistically  accurate 
we  need  not  require  the  writer  to  be ;  for  many  brooks  are  lost 
in  the  sand,  or  flow  into  the  Jordan ;  and  even  the  Jordan  itself 
flows  into  the  lake  of  Sodom.  But  in  Hebrew,  a  lake  is  called 
a  sea.  The  usual  fact  as  to  the  course  of  rivers,  is  enough  for 
the  writer's  purpose.  How  the  rivers  get  back  to  their  sources 
again,  so  as  to  repeat  the  flowing  into  the  sea,  the  writer  does  not 
intimate ;  even  as  before,  he  does  not  tell  us  how  the  sun  gets 
back  to  his  place  of  rising.  Probably  underground  channels 
were  supposed  to  exist;  comp.  Gen.  7  :  11,  where  the  fountains 
of  the  great  deep  are  said  to  be  unstopped,  in  order  to  overflow 
the  earth.  The  fact  that  rain  is  formed  by  evaporation  from  the 
sea,  (by  which  the  sea  parts  with  as  much  as  it  receives  and  so  is 
never  full),  seems  hardly  to  have  been  known  to  the  Hebrews,  at 
least  in  any  such  way  as  we  now  understand  the  matter ;  although 
there  is  something  like  to  this  in  the  earth-watering  mist  of  Gen. 
2:6.  —  ^2D*'^^  is  the  negative  of  the  verb  to  be,  combined  with 
tt^in,  see  Lex.  I'^x  with  the  remai-ks  on  the  sufiixes.  The  nega- 
tive before  a  def.  verb  would  be  stb ;  before  a  Part,  it  is  *^x.  — 
n'lp^  const,  form  before  ^^  =  "ic^.  5  Gri'*  §  H^.  2.  The  article  n, 
being  a   Guttural,  does  not  admit  the   Dagh.  forte   that  would 


Chap.  I.  8.  115 

normally  follow  'r  .  —  1-"  is  rifrlitly  connected  ])y  the  accent  ^vitii 
the  clause  that  follows  it,  and  means  there  or  (as  we  say  in  such 
a  case)  thither.  —  c-»z*J  Part.,  lit.  returning,  but  it  is  here  employ- 
ed in  the  sense  of  agitin  or  repetition  ;  see  Lex.  We  might  lite- 
rally translate :  thither  they  repeat  to  go.  For  b  ,  i.  e.  this  prefix 
with  (.^ainets  before  the  fern.  Inf.  rrb  (root  Tj^^),  see  Lex.  b.  The 
other  C^amets,  belonging  to  the  verb,  arises  from  the  pause,  § 
20.  4. 

(8)  All  words  grow  weary,  no  man  can  utter  [them]  ;  the  eye  is  not  satis- 
fied with  seeing,  nor  the  ear  filled  ^o  tliat  it  cannot  hear. 

The  Part,  c^rs";  belongs  to  an  intransitive  verb,  and  we  may 
translate  grow  weary  or  are  ivearied,  since  ra^  is  both  act.  and 
passive  as  to  its  form.  The  language  is  clearly  tropical,  but  the 
meaning  is  plain,  viz.,  that  language  would  fail  to  tell  the  whole, 
or  to  tell  it  would  weary  out  language.  So  the  clause  that  fol- 
lows ;  which  affirms  that  no  one  can  utter  all  the  words  necessary 
to  tell  the  whole  story.  The  article  stands  before  D''"i2'n ,  in  order 
to  show  that  the  words  or  descriptions  in  question  have  relation 
to  such  things  as  are  mentioned  in  vs.  4 — 7,  =  all  words  neces- 
sary to  relate  all  such  things. — V=^^,  the  Imperf.  Hoph.  of  bb^, 
lit.  shall  he  made  able,  is  in  common  use  for  Kal,  which  is  unem- 
ployed in  this  verb.  —  Li  nixnb  the  h  may  be  rendered  to,  or  in 
respect  to.  I  have  adopted  our  more  familiar  phraseology  — 
satisfied  witJt  seeing.  —  Nor  the  ear  he  Jilled  so  that  it  cannot  hear. 
The  ^  before  the  Inf.  has  usually  a  negative  meaning  (see  Lex. 
',"2,  5.  c),  i.  e.  lit.  it  means  from,  away  from,  any  thing  or  action, 
and  so  a  negation  of  it.  But  the  sense  of  the  two  last  clauses 
appears,  at  first,  to  be  rather  obscure.  They  are,  however,  evi- 
dently a  commentary  on  the  two  preceding  clauses,  designed  to 
illustrate  and  confirm  them.  The  eye  is  satisjied,  only  when  it 
has  seen  all  that  is  to  be  seen.  But  this  can  never  happen,  for 
the  things  that  might  be  seen  are  at  any  time  more  than  worda 
can  tell.  Of  course,  the  eye  cannot  be  satisfied  in  the  sense  here 
meant,  becau  e  it  can  never  see  all.  So  with  the  ear.  It  can 
never  be  filled,  so  that  there  is  not  more  which  might  be  told  and 
heard ;  and,  until  all  is  told,  it  is  not  full  so  that  no  more  can  be 
heard.  Hence  r^r"2,  ita  id  non  audiat.  Both  of  these  ctises 
show,  that  the  number  of  occurrences  and  events  iti  so  great,  that 


116  Chap.  I.  9,  10. 

it  is  beyond  the  power  of  eye  or  ear  to  see  or  hear  of  all.     They 
are,  as  asserted  above,  more  than  words  can  describe. 

(9)  That  which  was  is  that  which  shall  be,  and  that  which  was  done  is 
that  which  shall  be  done,  and  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun. 

For  ^;"!T2 ,  id  quod,  see  Lex.  T\i2 ,  2.  This  word  loses  its  inter- 
rogative  power,  when  combined  (as  here)  with  another  word.  — 
n^ri ,  has  occurred  or  taken  place,  accidit,  like  yivofua.  —  Jt'ti ,  in- 
volves the  copula  is,  and  may  therefore  be  literally  translated  is 
that,  or  is  the  same ;  Gr.  119.  2.  —  !^b"D,  verb  Niph.  The  Part, 
of  this  same  form  would  be  fern.,  and  so  not  accordant  with  the 
masc.  xin.  —  nb^';^ ,  Imperf.  Niph.,  Gr.  §  62.  4.  —  For  -px ,  the 
const,  form  of  'i-iij^ ,  see  in  Lex.  —  bs  with  short  6,  because  ojf  the 
Maqqeph.  The  first  clause  of  the  verse  refers  to  things  which 
happen,  the  second  to  things  which  are  done,  i.  e.  the  two  clauses 
include  both  occurrences  and  actions.  Of  these  it  is  said :  "  There 
is  nothing  new." 

(10)  Is  there  any  thing  of  which  one  may  say:  See,  this  is  new?  Long 
ago  was  it,  in  ancient  times  which  were  before  us. 

^'^n ,  matter,  thing  ;  as  often  elsewhere  ;  Lex.  3.  —  The  d  im- 
plies a  preposition  before  it,  a  or  h ,  concerning  or  in  regard  to, 
Gr.  §  152.  o.  'i^x^  has  no  subject  expressed,  and  has  therefore  an 
indef.  Norn,  one,  any  one.  —  i<in  simply  is,  see  Gr.  §  119.  2,  and 
Lex.  —  ^33 ,  frequent  in  Syriac,  but  peculiar  to  Ecc.  in  the  He- 
brew.    Hitzig  has  best  illustrated  it  by  the  Arabic  StS^  i^  'n^S) 

which  means  extreme  old  age.  Knobel  doubts  such  a  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew,  but  without  good  reason.  At  any  rate,  it  tits  the 
passage  well.  —  That  f^^cH'  often  means  ancient  times,  days  of  yore, 
the  Lex.  will  show,  b  before  it,  in  such  a  case,  is  not  unfrequent, 
for  this  preposition  is  often  prefixed  to  a  word  designating  time. 
Gr.  151.  3.  e.  —  The  verb  n^n  which  follows  is  sing,  while  its 
antecedent  subject  is  plural.  But  like  cases  occur  in  respect  to 
this  verb  and  some  others ;  see  in  Ecc.  2:  7.  Gen.  35  :  26.  47  : 
24.  1  Chron.  2:9.  3:1.  Similar  anomalies  of  t\'^'r\  in  respect 
to  gender  also  occur;  comp.  Ex.  12:  49.  Gen.  15:  17.  Li  fact, 
then,  n^n  seems  to  be  occasionally  used  in  a  kind  of  impersonal 
way,  so  that  the  sing,  number  may  be  employed,  even  if  the 


Chap.  I.  11.  117 

noun  (o  whifli  tluj  verb  stands  related  is  in  tlic  i)liiral.  It  may  be, 
too,  that  I'Jx  (in  tlie  j)resent  case),  having  a  sing,  form,  even 
when  a  jihir.  is  desi^rnated  by  it  (as  liere),  may  take  after  it  a  verb 
of  the  like  form.  Ewald  translates  thus :  what  happens  before  our 
eyes,  making  this  clause  the  subject  or  ]\om.  to  n^■^  n^s.  liut  this 
would  rc(juire  ^l.^sb  ,  and  not  admit  of  ^DIE'^'C  ,  Avliich  means /rowi 
[the  time]  before  ns  ;   see  Is.  41:  2G. 

The  bearing  of  vs.  0, 10,  on  what  precedes,  is  plain.  The  writer 
had  said,  that  everything  moved  on  in  one  perpetual  circle  of  repe- 
tition, the  same  things  always  occurring  over  and  over  again. 
Here  he  confirms  his  assertion,  by  challenging  any  one  to  point 
out  a  single  thing  which  is  actually  new,  i.  e.  which  is  an  excep- 
tion to  what  he  atfu-ms.  Long  ago  did  everything  hai)pen,  which 
now  happens ;  therefore,  there  is  one  unvarying  round  of  occur- 
rences. 

(11)  Tliere  is  no  remcmhi-iincc  of  former  things;  and  also  in  respect  to 
after  thini^s  wliich  are  to  come,  there  will  be  no  remembrance  of  them  among 
those  who  will  exist  thereafter. 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason,  why  some  err  in  supposing  that 
something  new  takes  place.  This  reason  is,  that  no  regard  is 
paid  to  the  fact,  that  former  occurrences  are  forgotten  ;  and  not 
recognizing  this,  some  suppose  that  things  happen  which  are  new. 
Moreover,  what  is  true  in  regard  to  forgetting  past  things,  will,  in 
future,  be  equally  true  of  things  yet  to  come.  Those  who  succeed 
the  next  generation  will,  in  like  manner,  forget  what  preceded 
them.  Consequently,  tliere  can  be  no  proof  that  any  new  thing 
actually  takes  place. 

The  word  ■)•"'=''.  (from  liiST)  is  in  the  const,  form  ;  and  it  may 
be  so,  notwithstanding  the  h  that  follows  ;  Gr.  §  114.  1.  But  not 
improbably  the  apparent  const,  form  here  may,  in  reality,  be  abso- 
lute, like  V*r? '  "0"'''r? )  etc.,  as  some  nouns,  we  well  know,  have 
more  than  one  absolute  form.  —  Jn  =":"ri<~b  ,  the  b  has  the  article- 
voicel,  and  the  article  is  employed  before  a  word  designating  an 
entire  totality.  Lit.  the  word  means  primus,  frst  ;  but,  by 
usage,  (since  there  is  no  compar.  form  for  adjectives  in  Ileb.), 
it  means,  former,  antecedent,  viz.  former  occurrences  and  actions. 
The  same  is  true  of  c^s-nxV,  which  is  generic,  and  designates 
all  that  will  occur  or  be  done  thereafter.  Of  course  the  article 
may  be  used  before  it,  as  it  is  in  b  .  —  cr  ,  icith,  but  also  as 
apiid,  among,  which  is  the  better  sense  here. 


118  Chap.  1. 12. 


§  2.  Efforts  to  oUain  Jiappiness  hy  the  acquisition  of  ivisdom. 

[We  have  seen  that  §  1  contains  an  introduction,  by  proposing  tlic  theme, 
and  pointing  out  the  general  sources  wlicnce  the  proof  of  that  theme  will  be 
drawn,  viz.  from  the  brevity  find  vanity  of  human  life,  and  the  immutable  and 
ever-recurring  round  of  phenomena  in  the  world  about  us  and  above  us.  A 
divine  Omni])otent  hand  has  enstamped  these  characters  on  everything;  and 
man,  who  is  miserable  now,  cannot  indulge  any  hope  of  bettering  his  condi- 
tion by  changes  made  in  the  order  and  intluence  of  natural  piienomena. 
Having  thus  introduced  his  reader  to  the  outlines  of  his  theme,  the  author 
proceeds  to  tell  us  who  he  is,  and  Avhat  experiments  he  has  made  in  order  to 
discover  the  secret  of  human  happiness  in  the  present  world.  His  experience 
is  very  diversified  ;  and  he  shows  us  that,  in  wliatever  way  he  turned  hiniself, 
he  was  always  forced  at  last  to  the  same  conclusion,  viz.  that  all  is  vanity.] 

Chap.  I.  12—18. 

(12)  I,  Coheleth,  was  king  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem. 

If,  as  Hitzig  intimates  (Vorbemerk.  §  3),  Coheleth  be  Wisdom 
incarnate  in  Solomon,  and  thus  personified,  how  could  the  writer 
speak  as  he  does  here  ?  In  Prov.  viii,  and  in  the  book  of  Wisdom, 
the  personification  of  Wisdom  is  made  plain  and  palpable  to  the 
reader.  But  here  we  have  a  personage,  who  is  king  over  a  par- 
ticular people,  and  in  a  definite  city.  The  designations  in  v.  12 
would,  indeed,  seem  very  strange  in  the  mouth  of  Solomon,  on  the 
supposition  that  he,  in  person,  is  addressing  his  contemporaries. 
Did  they  need  to  be  told  that  he  lived  at  Jerusalem  ?  Above  all, 
those  who  think  Coheleth  means  a  literary  academy,  or  consessus, 
are  forced  to  an  almost  ridiculous  translation  here.  So  Doderlein : 
"  I,  O  academy,  was  king,  etc."  The  language  seems  to  be  expli- 
cable only  on  the  ground,  that  the  book  was  composed  when  the 
nation  had  been  divided,  and  there  were  two  kings  and  two  capi- 
tals in  Palestine. — Israel  is  a  name  applicable  to  the  whole  nation, 
or  to  the  ten  tribes,  or,  finally,  to  the  two  tribes  of  Judah  and  Ben- 
jamin. Here  it  has  the  latter  meaning.  —  The  emphasis  laid  on 
was,  by  expressly  inserting  the  verb  '^n'^^ti ,  shows  that  the  day 
had  passed  by,  when  Coheleth  was  king.  This  was  not  the  case 
with  Solomon  while  he  lived,  for  he  was  king  to  the  time  of  his 
death  ;  and  therefore  he  could  not  speak  of  himself  as  a  past  king. 
—  Tlie  plui'al  (or  dual)  form  of  c^Vrn';^  probably  took  its  rise 
from  the  upper  and  lower  parts  of  the  city  ;  like  C^"::^*:: ,  the  two 
Mitzars,  or  Egypt,  upper  and  lower. 


Chap.  I.  13.  119 

But  why  does  the  writer  bring  this  to  view  ?  Phiinly  because 
that  wisdom,  the  tirst  special  and  individual  topic  of  discussion, 
belonged  preeminently  to  Solomon.  If  any  one  could  iind  happi- 
ness m  the  pursuit  of  it,  he  surely  was  the  man. 

( I.-l)  And  I  fiavc  my  mind  to  seek  out  and  make  careful  investigation  l.y  wis- 
dom, eonccm.n-  ,,11  whic-l,  is  done  under  heaven ;  this  is  an  unhappv  employ- 
ment wh.eh  God  has  given  to  the  sons  of  men,  to  oeeupy  themselves  'therewith. 

The  verb  'd'^rj  means  to  seek  after,  to  seek  out.  n^pi  means 
more  than  this,  viz.  it  literally  signifies  to  go  round  and  round 
a  tlnng,  ni  order  closely  to  inspect  it  ;  hence  it  means,  in  its 
secondary  sense,  to  investigate  carefully  and  closely.  The  first  verb 
designates  looking  up  the  object,  the  second  means  careftilly  pry- 
ing into  it  and  minutely  examining  it.  The  2  (pre],.)  marks  the 
instrumentality  employed,  or  the  manner  in  which  the  investicra- 
tion  was  conducted.  The  Pattah  under  it  is  the  article-vowel  • 
and  rightly  does  it  stand  here,  for  rrcrnn  means  the  ivisdom  requi- 
site or  appropriate  to  such  an  investigation.  —  Everything  which 
IS  done,  refers  to  the  ac(io?is  of  men,  and  not  the  objects  of  nature  ; 
for  he  could  not  well  say  of  them,  what  he  affirms  in  v.  14,  viz' 
that  they  were  all  vanity  and  an  empty  affiiir.  Their  immutable 
order  and  ever-recurring  and  uniform  phenomena,  however,  ren- 
der them  incapable  of  control  by  man,  as  vs.  4—8  show  ;  and 
therefore  they  are  incapable  of  being  so  used  by  him  as  (o  prevent 
all  his  inconveniences  and  sufferings.  Yet  the  things  in  them- 
selves are  beautiful  and  good,  as  3:11  declares.  It  is  the  vanity 
of  human  effort  after  knowledge,  i.  e.  such  knowledge  as  will 
secure  and  render  stable  our  j.resent  happiness,  which  the  writer 
IS  going  to  discuss,  lie  declares  at  the  outset,  that  this  employ- 
ment is  an  unhappy  one,  although  Providence  has  seen  fit  to  dis- 
cipline men  thereby. 

^  .yn  it  is,  or  the  same  is,  §  110.  2.  _  r.^,  l^^mness,  occupation, 
in  the  const,  state  before  rn ,  which  is  here  a  noim  used  for  an 
adjeclive,  §  104. 1 .  The  distinctive  accent  (Rebhia)  gives  the  form 
With  (^ainets,  instead  of  the  original  Pattah,  :-.  Such  a  gram- 
matical relation  of  nouns  connected  intimately,  is  not  unfr((iuent  • 
•see  Ecc.  4  ;  8.  5  :  13.  Ezek.  11:  2.  Prov.  G  :  24.  24  :  25.  28  •  5* 
and  comp.  Gr.  §  104.  1.  The  meaning  of  the  word  •-"  here,  and 
in  several  other  places  in  Ecc,  viz.  occupation,  business,  is  pecu- 


120  Chap.  I.  14. 

liar  to  tliis  book  alone  in  the  O.  Testament.  In  Rabbinic,  the  like 
is  very  frequent.  It  comes  from  the  meaning  of  No.  II.  under  n::^' , 
which  is  lahorem  impendit,  followed  by  2  before  the  object  on 
which  tlie  labor  is  bestowed ;  see  the  end  of  this  verse.  The 
same  meaning  and  construction  is  common  both  to  the  Syriac  and 
Arabic.  Specially  is  the  word  applied  to  a  toilsome  labor  be- 
stowed on  anything  ;  which  is  just  the  case  before  us.  —  Before 
'jjns  the  pron.  ^'rx  is  implied,  §  121.  3.  —  God  has  assigned  to  the 
sons  of  men,  is  designed  to  shoAv,  that  an  overruling  Providence 
controls  all  such  things,  and  therefore  that  men  sliould  not  mur- 
mur, because  this  is  their  lot.  Nowhere  does  the  writer  cast 
imputations  upon  Providence  for  its  allotments  ;  but  still,  he  fully 
states  the  trials  and  grievances  of  man,  under  the  immutable 
arrangements  of  Providence.  —  niDr  in  the  like  sense  as  ',2;? . 

(14)  I  considered  all  the  works  which  are  done  under  the  sun,  and  lo!  all 
is  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

'^ri'^i^'n  is  used  to  designate  mental  seeing  or  consideration,  (so 
here),  as  well  as  corporeal  seeing.  —  Works  are  here  the  same 
which  have  before  been  brought  to  view.  Vsh  with  the  article, 
because  it  designates  an  entire  class  of  things.  —  nn  r.^i^'n  some 
translate  affliction  of  spirit,  deducing  the  word  from  rn  or  rr'n. 
But  this  cannot  be  done  ;  for  such  verbs  do  not  yield  the  form  in 
question.  Another  class  render  \i  feeding  of  the  wind,  deriving  it 
from  t\'J*\  to  feed,  and  comparing  Hos.  2 :  2.  But  "the  noun  is 
abstract  in  its  present  form,  and  will  hardly  bear  this  verbal 
active  sense.  It  should  be  ni^?"! ,  an  Infin.  nomen  actionis.  The 
word  seems  best  derived  from  t\'Jj"\  as  equivalent  to  niin  ,  to  take 
pleasure  in,  to  will  or  desire.  So  the  Chald.  m^^n  means.  We 
may  translate :  studiiun  venti,  i.  e.  a  ivindy  affair,  or  a.  icorthless 
business.  Considering  how  much  of  the  diction  of  the  book  consists 
of  the  later  Hebrew,  which  approaches  to  the  Chaldee,  such  a  use 
of  the  word  is  not  improbable.  But  this  use,  however,  in  Hebrew, 
is  to  be  found  only  in  Ecclesiastes.  This  sense  harmonizes  well 
with  'J'^  l^?:;,  in  v.  13.  So  Knobel,  Ges.,  Eosenm.,  and  Heiligs. ; 
and  to  this  I  see  no  weighty  objection.  The  form  is  like  T.^'O 
from  nnd ,  Gr.  §  84.  V. 

This  result  shows  why,  in  the  preceding  verse,  he  declares  the 
undertaking  of  a  close  investigation  to  be  an  r'n  )'2)^^  ,  a  disagree- 
able occupation. 


CiiAP.  I.  15,  IG.  ♦  121 

(15)  That  which  is  crooked  cannot  he  straiglitcncd.  and  that  which  is  want- 
ing cannot  I)c  niunhcrcd. 

Here  is  tlie  grotind  of  the  sentiment  in  v.  14.  Human  efforts 
are  vain  and  fruitless,  because  they  cannot  change  or  amend  the 
constitution  and  course  of  things.  In  7:13,  the  r^v^  is  attributed 
to  God  as  a  work  of  his,  or  something  which  he  has  made.  Of 
course,  what  the  writer  means,  in  the  present  case,  is,  that  there 
are  numerous  causes  of  Imman  misery  and  suffering,  wliich  lie 
under  no  control  of  man.  INIany  things  are  lacking  which  might 
administer  to  his  comfort,  that  cannot  be  at  all  supplied  by  any- 
human  effort.  Hence  the  efforts  of  man,  in  pursuit  of  gratifying  his 
desires,  are  a  nin  r^irn .  The  Part,  r^v^  is  in  Pual  of  r}v ,  with 
1  as  a  reg.  consonant.  —  'j?n  is  a  neut.  intrans.  verb,  rectizs  fuit, 
and  so  it  may  be  rendered  passively,  as  above.  ■)i"ipn ,  instead 
of  "lOn  or  "ion ,  shows  the  tendency,  in  the  later  Hebrew,  to  forms 
of  this  kind.  —  m:^n ,  Inf.  Niph.  of  n^-c ,  to  number.  When  the 
parts  of  a  thing  can  be  all  numbered,  everything  is  there  which 
makes  a  complete  whole.  The  lack,  in  the  present  case,  shows 
imperfection  ;  and  one  which  no  man  can  supply  or  make  up. 

(16)  I  spake  in  my  licart,  saying :  I,  lo !  I  have  increased  and  added  to  wis- 
dom beyond  all  who  were  before  me  at  Jerusalem  — and  my  mind  lias  con- 
sidered wisdom  and  knowledge  very  much. 

To  speak  in,  the  heart,  means  to  commune  with  one's  self,  to 
reflect  or  deliberate  upon.  The  "OX  which  stands  before  r-\iT)  is 
designed  to  give  special  emj)hasis  to  the  clause.  The  shape  of  the 
Heb.  is  such  as  I  have  given  to  the  Eng.  translation  above. — 
■'tnb'njn ,  in  Hiph.  means  to  make  great,  i.  e.  to  increase,  to  enlarge. 
—  "'nsD'in ,  Hiph.  of  ro^ ,  /  made  addition  to,  i.  e.  he  increased 
the  wisdom  which  had  before  become  great,  he  added  to  it  still 
more  by  his  strenuous  efforts.  —  The  second  b:?,  before  the 
name  of  a  place,  means  at;  see  Lex.  b? .  3.  —  ria^iH,  Inf.  Hiph., 
lit.  midtiplicando.  In  meaning  =  *is<p  (not  used  in  this  book), 
and  sometimes  both  are  united  in  the  Hebrew  for  the  sake  of  in- 
tensity. Its  adverbial  use,  as  here,  is  very  common  everywhere, 
Gr.  §  98.  2.  d.  —  ^^l'^'^  '^'t't'7'  ^^^^  ^^^^  word  means  practical  or 
prudential  wisdom,  while  rv"!  designates  theoretical  knowledge  or 
sagacity ;  like  the  Greek  cocfia  and  yrcoaii;.  For  the  first  Qa- 
mets  in  r^n; ,  see  Lex.  l ;  for  the  second,  Gr.  §  29.  4.  The  form. 
11 


122  ♦  Chap.  I.  17, 18. 

is  the  same  as  that  of  the  feminine  Infinitive  of  'J"}'^  ;  but  the  mean- 
ing is  abstract,  and  it  is  not,  like  the  Inf.,  a  mere  nomen  actionis. 
All  ivho  were  before  him  in  Jerusalem,  cannot  mean  all  persons 
of  every  class,  but  all  kings.  IIow  many  of  these  were  there 
before  Solomon  ?  Only  one,  viz.  his  father  David.  Would  it 
not  seem  strange  for  Solomon  himself  to  use  such  an  expression  ? 
Even  a  later  writer,  who  personifies  him,  must  be  here  regarded 
as  giving  his  own  impressions  about  a  succession  of  kings,  and 
speaking  of  it  in  the  language  then  current.  Strict  concinnity  is 
not  closely  observed  in  the  clause  before  us.  It  has  the  hue  of 
a  later  composition  than  the  age  of  Solomon. 

(17)  And  I  applied  my  mind  to  know  wisdom,  and  to  know  madness  and 
folly  ;  I  perceived  that  this  also  is  fruitless  effort. 

For  the  n-  in  the  first  verb,  see  §  48b.  2.  a.  —  'r-'S'-^ ,  with 
h  implied,  as  in  the  preceding  case  it  is  expressed,  viz.  in  T\'$_^. 
For  the  pointing  of  b,  see  Lex.  h.  —  nibVn,  Plur.  of  nibbin  (10: 13), 
and  much  oftener  employed,  because  it  is  intense  =  ravings. 
—  n^bsb  with  Sin  ;  more  correctly  is  D  put  for  b  in  2:3, 
12,  13.  7 :  25.  10 :  1,  13  ;  for  D  follows  the  true  etymology.  — 
i<!in  is,  as  before.  —  n^n  'li^j^n  the  same  as  n^i  n^i"^  in  v.  14. 
It  is  from  the  same  root  (ti:^"^) ,  and  differs  merely  in  form  from 
the  other,  §  83.  15,  16. 

(18)  For  in  much  wisdom  is  much  irritation;  and  he  who  addeth  to 
his  knowledge,  addeth  to  his  sorrow. 

The  reason  is  here  given  of  what  is  asserted  at  the  close  of  the 
preceding  verse.  Irritation  or  vexation  results  from  the  often- 
disappointed  hopes  and  efforts  to  extend  one's  knowledge.  Sorrow 
may  refer  to  the  depression  of  mind  which  often  succeeds  intense 
study  and  efforts  to  acquire  knowledge,  or  possibly  to  the  bodily 
indisposition  which  commonly  attends  such  exertions.  When  the 
pursuit  of  wisdom,  and  the  efforts  to  separate  it  from  folly,  result 
in  this  state  of  mind  and  body,  it  becomes  plain  that  it  is  a  fruit- 
less pursuit,  as  it  respects  one's  fully  attaining  to  solid  and  per- 
manent happiness.  In  accordance  with  this  sentiment  Cicero 
speaks  :  Videtur  mihi  cadere  in  sapientem  aegritudo,  Tusc.  III.  4. 
So  Montenabbi :  "  Destiny  contends  with  the  preeminent ;  by  the 
side  of  greater  knowledge  marches  greater  grief ;"  in  Gynsburg's 
Geist  des  Orient,  s.  144. 


Chap.  II.  1,  2.  128 

§  3.  Efforts  to  obtain  happiness  hy  the  pursuit  of  pleasure. 
Chap.  II.  1—11. 

[These  arc  presented  in  reg:anl  to  a  variety  of  partieulars.  Colieletii  in- 
dulged in  mirth  and  wine;  in  building  and  phinting;  in  parks  and  pleasure- 
gardens;  in  tlie  possession  of  many  servants  and  of  many  flocks  and  lierds; 
in  heaping  up  gold  and  silver;  in  procuring  singing  men  and  women;  in 
marrying  a  wife  and  taking  many  concubines ;  and  finally,  in  every  thing 
which  could  gratify  either  the  eye,  or  the  car,  or  any  of  the  senses.  At  last. 
he  found  all  these  indulgences  to  be  utterly  incompetent  to  aflTord  the  happi- 
ness wliich  he  sought,  vs.  I — 11.  In  1  :  17  he  says,  that  he  sought  out  both 
wisdom  and  folly-  Of  his  ill  success  in  the  former  pursuit,  he  has  already 
told  us;  he  is  now  going  to  tell  us  what  resulted  from  the  folly  of  pursuing 
pleasure.] 

(1)  I  said  in  my  heart:  Come  now,  let  me  try  thee  with  pleasure,  and  do 
thou  enjoy  good  !     And  lo !  even  this  is  vanity. 

This  form  of  monologue  with  one's  self  is  not  without  parallel 
in  the  Heb.  Scriptures ;  see  Ps.  42 :  G,  1 2.  43 :  5,  perhaps  Ps. 
16  :  2.  comp.  Luke  12:  18  seq.,  "  I  will  say  to  my  soul :  Soul, 
thou  hast  many  good  things,"  etc. —  (for  T\P,),  !^=^  emphatic  pro- 
longed Imper.,  come  thou!  —  !"'=&:><,  Piel  of  noj  with  suff.  hav- 
ing n  paragogic :  Let  me  try  thee.  Both  suffixes  refer  to  sb  = 
Trs3 ,  for  both  occasionally  =-  self.  —  nn^bs ,  with  joy,  i.  e.  plea- 
sure of  every  kind.  —  f^>?"ii,  and  enjoy  thou ;  but  the  form  is  Im- 
per. masc.  in  reference  to  zh .  Some  translate :  "  Tiioii  shalt 
enjoy,  etc."  But  this  is  less  energic  than  the  Imper.  form  of 
the  Hebrew.  To  see  is  often  used  in  the  O.  Test,  and  in  the 
New  for  perceiving,  enjoying  ;  comp.  (S:^.  —  C5 ,  also,  likeioise,  i.  e. 
found  this  to  be  vanity  as  well  as  the  matter  set  forth  in  1:17. 
—  l-iiri ,  see  here,  lo  !  calling  special  attention.  —  x^in,  IVds  is. 

Such  is  the  general  proposition  of  §  3.  The  proofs  and  illus- 
tration of  what  is  here  laid  down,  are  detailed  in  the  sequel. 
The  good  in  question  is  not  moral  or  spiritual,  but  natural  physi- 
cal good,  i  e.  pleasure  or  enjoyment.  The  writer  intends  to 
show,  that  all  tlie  sources  of  it  fail  to  produce  the  desired  end,  i.  e. 
solid  and  lasting  ha{)piness. 

(2)  In  respect  to  laughter  I  said:  Madness!  And  in  respect  to  i)lcasurc: 
What  avails  it? 


124  Chap.  IL  3. 

b  in  respect  to,  see  Lex.  ^  A.  5.  —  bbiln^ ,  Part.  Poal,  neut.  gen- 
der, silly  stuff  or  a  stupid  business.  By  laughter  is  meant  boister- 
ous or  noisy  mirth,  i.  e.  unrestrained  and  immoderate  rioting.  — 
But  nnrb  designates  pleasure  in  general,  comprehending  all 
and  every  kind  of  it.  Respecting  this  he  asks :  What  does  it 
avail,  or  yield'?  i.  e.  it  yields  nothing  of  solid  and  lasting  worth. 
—  riT  is  fern.,  and  peculiar  to  this  book  only  as  to  frequency.  It 
belongs  to  the  later  Hebrew,  and  seems  to  be  an  apoc.  form  of 
nJjT,  like  n'pa  out  of  niba;  for  examples  of  it,  see  5:  15,  18.  7: 
23.  9:  13.  —  ti'&J  Part,  fern.,  with  meaning  as  in  '^"iS  Mb^,  to 
produce  fruit ;  which  meaning  is  very  common.  —  For  the  Dagh. 
conjunc.  in  t ,  see  under  t\-q  in  Lex. 

(3)  I  sought  in  my  mind  to  draw  my  flesh  by  wine,  and  my  mind  con- 
tinued to  guide  with  sagacity;  and  also  to  hiy  hold  upon  folly,  until  I  should 
see  what  is  good  for  the  sons  of  men  which  they  should  do  under  heaven, 
during  the  number  of  the  days  of  their  lives. 

The  b  here  before  the  Inf.  might  have  the  same  sense  that  I 
have, given  to  it  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  with  respect  to ;  but 
the  version  above  is  more  congruous  here.  The  preceding  verb, 
•'tn'iF] ,  means  to  investigate,  lit.  to  go  round  and  round  a  thing  in 
the  mind  ;  with  the  design  of  preparing  for  action.  Erroneous  is 
the  version :  "  I  determined  in  my  mind  to  confirm,  or  attract, 
etc."  The  meaning  is,  that  Coheleth  often  and  seriously  reflect- 
ed on  the  doings  in  which  he  was  about  to  engage.  —  T|"i^p^  here 
has  long  been  an  off'endiculum  criticorum.  The  literal  meaning 
of  the  verb  is  to  draw,  drag  along,  draw  out  in  the  sense  of  ex- 
tracting, or  (in  case  of  sound)  protracting.  These  meanings  ex- 
haust the  legitimate  sense  of  the  word ;  the  rest  assigned  to  it  are 
factitious,  and  made  out  from  the  apparent  stress  of  the  occasion. 
Ges.  renders:  Jirmavit,  strengthened,  because  the  corresponding 
Syriac  verb  has  the  sense  of  induruit.  But  this  meaning  is 
inapposite  here ;  for  it  is  pleasurable  indulgence  in  wine,  which  is 
the  immediate  subject-matter  of  the  discourse,  and  not  wine  used 
as  a  tonic  or  medicine,  i.  e.  to  strengthen.  We  are  not  at  liberty 
to  appeal  to  the  Syriac,  if  we  can  do  as  well  without  it.  Knobel  ; 
festhalten,  in  the  sense  of  holding  fast  to,  i.  e.  retaining  and  not 
remitting  the  use  of  wine.  But  so  the  proper  order  of  things 
would  be  reversed.    It  is  the  driukin":  of  it  that  comes  first  in 


CiiAP.  11.  3.  125 

order;  the  holding  on  to  drinking  is  a  suhsequent  matter,  and 
therefore  shouKl  not  be  placed  first.  Ilciligstedt:  trahere,  i.  e. 
attrahcre,  to  attract.  But  this  gives  to  tlie  word  trahere  here  the 
sen-e  of  allure,  which  surely  is  not  the  meaning  of  r^&Q .  Then 
it  requires  "i^jia  to  be  translated  to  wine,  (altrahere  ad  vinum,  as 
he  renders  it)  ;  which  is  out  of  the  question  liere,  because  wine 
is  the  instrument  or  agent  by  which  the  drawing  is  done.  J.  H. 
Mich,  (in  Bibl.)  :  "  ut  profraherem,  i.  c.  j)aullo  diutius  detinerem  ;" 
a  sense  which  would  give  to  the  wine-drinking  a  medicinal  object 
and  aspect  here,  instead  of  a  pleasurable  one,  as  the  text  demands ; 
and  this  would  be  inapposite.  Besides,  diutius  detinerem  is  a 
sense  that  the  verb  will  hardly  bear.  But  after  rejecting  all 
this,  what  have  we  left  ?  Ilitzig  has  given  a  new  turn  to  the 
matter.  He  puts  T^'di2  in  relation  with  the  following  m ;  the 
one  draws  the  chariot  in  which  the  man  ("^"^'wa)  is  seated,  while 
the  other  drives  or  guides  it.  He  compares  Avith  it  the  phrase  : 
to  support  or  proj)  up  the  lieart  with  bread.  In  this  last  phrase, 
bread  is  represented  as  holding  up  or  supporting.  So  to  draw  or 
carry  along  by  the  aid  of  wine,  he  thinks  to  be  a  parallel  mode 
of  expression.  Wine  "  keeps  the  machine  in  motion."  But 
this  seems  rather  far-fetched,  at  first  view.  2h  draw  along  the 
body  or  flesh  is,  at  least,  a  metaphor  elsewhere  unknown.  To 
protract  the  flesh  would  be  less  strange,  if  it  could  have  any  other 
meaning  than  a  medicinal  one,  i.  e.  prolong  its  continuance.  To 
draw  out,  in  the  sense  of  widening  or  expanding,  would  be  inap- 
propriate. Coheleth  surely  could  not  expect  pleasure,  from  mak- 
ing his  body  huge  and  unwieldy.  Still,  that  m  has  a  relation  to 
'7^'6'Q ,  seems  to  be  altogether  probable.  They  are  correlates,  in 
a  like  way  as  coach  and  driver.  Urged  by  this  apparent  correla- 
tion, and  by  the  difficulties  of  the  other  and  different  versions,  we 
can  hardly  refuse  to  conclude,  that  the  first  expression  regards 
men  as  moving  along  on  the  journey  of  life,  while  wine  is,  so  to 
speak,  the  drawer  of  their  chariot.  But  such  a  steed  is  often 
furious,  and  so  it  needs  a  "j^ri}  endowed  with  wisdom,  i.  e.  skilful 
leader  or  driver.  And  such  a  driver  Coheleth  employed.  In  other 
words  :  he  did  not  go  into  excess  in  drinking  wine,  and  tlius  injure 
or  destroy  himself;  but  when  he  indulged  in  it,  he  took  MTSDn  for 
his  guide,  i.  e.  discretion,  wariness,  or  sagacity.  In  this  way  he 
might  proceed  some  length  in  his  experiment,  without  material 
11* 


126  Chap.  II.  3. 

harm.  —  ^bs  is  the  corporeal  me,  the  physical  self.  —  Mib  means 
literally  panting ;  then  making  to  pant,  to  agitate,  or  urge,  and  so 
the  Part,  means,  one  who  urges,  etc.,  e.  g.  as  a  driver  urges  his 
team,  or  a  shepherd  his  flock.  The  discretion  of  Coheleth,  in 
providing  such  a  guide  or  coachman  (so  to  speak)  as  ?^^2^  , 
when  wine  was  carrying  him  along  on  his  journey,  is  very  appar- 
ent. On  the  whole,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  sense  thus 
given  by  Hitzig  is  significant,  and  to  the  writer's  present  purpose. 
The  main  difficulty  is  the  seeming  strangeness  of  the  figurative 
or  symbolical  representation.  But  we  now  and  then  are  compel- 
led to  admit,  in  other  cases,  imagery  not  elsewhere  employed,  on 
the  ground  of  securing  congruity  in  the  sense.  Must  we  not 
acquiesce  in  this  here,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  violate  the  princi- 
ples of  lexicography,  while  it  makes  the  passage  altogether  sig- 
nificant ? 

—  thxb  connects  with  Tp^^^  ?  and  both  fall  back  on  '^Pi'in .  He 
resolved  in  his  mind  the  project  of  laying  hold  on  folly,  i.  e.  to 
grasp  it  and  keep  hold  of  it,  until  he  could  thoroughly  examine 
it.  In  the  preceding  chapter,  we  are  told  how  he  had  been  dis- 
appointed in  the  pursuit  of  wisdom.  Now  he  is  making  a  new 
sort  of  trial.  He  mixes  wisdom  and  folly  together,  i.  e.  he  gives 
up  himself  to  indulgence  in  wine,  but  takes  care  not  to  lay  aside 
discretion  in  the  matter.  The  drinking  is  the  matter  of  folly ; 
and  this  is  what  he  designs  to  investigate.  —  Until  I  might  see 
what  is  good,  etc.  '^^^  const,  form  of  "^i^,  and  usually  connected 
with  a  pronoun  of  some  kind.  Originally,  it  means  where ;  but 
secondarily  it  occupies  the  same  place  as  'm:;JK ,  and  has  a  like 
sense.  It  is  the  sign  of  a  question  before  pronouns  and  adverbs ; 
and  this,  whether  the  question  be  direct,  or  (as  here)  indirect. 
We  may  therefore  translate  it  here  by  what,  as  do  Hitzig,  Knob., 
and  Ileiligs.  —  nil:  here,  as  usual  in  this  book,  means  what  is 
useful,  pleasant,  promotive  of  enjoyment.  —  IbsJ;^  'nOii ,  thai  they 
should  do,  not  (as  many)  :  what  they  do ;  see  Lex.  "luix ,  B.  2. 
The  object  of  Coheleth  was  to  see,  by  experiment,  what  could  be 
done  to  advantage,  or  so  as  to  secure  true  enjoyment  in  respect 
to  the  matter  before  him.  —  lepri  is  translated  by  De  Wette, 
Knobel,  and  others,  few  (lit.,  as  they  aver,  fewness).  But  no 
case  occurs  of  'nQpp,  in  the  const,  state  as  here,  with  such  a 
meaning.     AU  the  cases,  e.  g.  Gen.  34 :  30,    Deut.  4 :  27.     Jer. 


Chap.  II.  4,  5.  127 

44:28.  Ps.  105:12.  1  Cliron.  16: 19.  Job  1 6 :  22,  et  al.,  arc  cases 
■where  the  form  is  "iBp:: ,  which  is  in  the  Gen.  after  another  noun, 
and  thus  meaning  fewness,  it  becomes  an  adjective  =  few,  §  104. 
I.  Lit.  it  designates  tlait  xchicft  can  he  numbered,  and  of  course 
comparatively  a  few.  But  it  also  means  number  simply  con- 
sidered ;  and  such  is  tlie  meaning  here,  it  being  in  the  Ace.  of  time 
how  long  ;  we  must  then  transhite  thus  :  during  the  number  of  the 
days,  etc.    See  §  IIG.  2. 

Sentiment :  '  I  revolved  in  my  mind  the  effort,  to  make  the 
journey  of  life  by  the  aid  of  wine  to  carry  me  along,  associated 
with  sagacity  as  my  conductor  or  guide  ;  and  thus  to  subject  to 
examination  the  apparent  folly  of  drinking  wine,  until  I  should 
come  to  see  how  far  it  might  promote  our  present  enjoyment.'  In 
this  meaning  we  may  acquiesce,  undisturbed  by  any  incongruity 
excepting  the  apparent  singularity  of  the  imagery  employed.  I  feel 
philologically  compelled  to  assent  to  this  ;  at  least,  until  more  light 
is  thrown  upon  the  doubtful  clauses.  The  new  meanings  given  to 
the  word  T\^'Q  do  not  make  an  apposite  sense  here  ;  and  therefore 
it  is  better  to  abide  by  the  old  one  if  we  can. 

(4)  I  engaged  in  great  undertakings  ;  I  built  for  myself  houses,  and 
planted  for  myself  vineyards. 

The  first  clause  is  a  general  introduction  to  what  follows ; 
which  consists  in  designations  of  the  specific  undertakings  that 
constituted  his  works.  The  first  clause  lit.  means,  Imade  great  my 
works.  The  true  idea  is  given  in  the  English  version  above.  — 
^h  is  the  Dat.  commodi.  Solomon  was  thirteen  years  in  building 
his  own  magnificent  house  ;  he  also  built  a  like  one  for  his  Egyp- 
tian wife,  besides  his  "  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon,"  (1  K.  7 : 
1,  2,  8),  not  to  mention  the  temple,  1  K.  9:19.  His  vineyards  are 
mentioned  in  Cant.  8:11. 

(5)  I  made  for  myself  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds,  and  I  jdanted  in  them 
fruit-trees  of  every  kind.  , 

la  is  from  '33  ;  hence  the  Dagh.  forte  in  the  plural.  But  the 
verb  means  to  protect ;  and  therefore  the  lleb.  idea  of  a  garden 
is  that  of  an  enclosed  or  protected  place.  —  D"niB  is  a  foreign  word, 
found  elsewhere  only  in  Cant.  4: 13.  Neh.  2 :  8.  .The  latter  pas- 
sage shows  that  large  trees  belonged  to  such  a  paradise.    The 


128  Chap.  IT.  6, 7. 

Greeks  transplanted  the  word,  through  Xenophon,  into  their  lan- 
guage—  TTaoddeiaog  ;  Xen.  Cyrop.  I.  3.  5.  12.  Oecon.  4.  13.  In 
Armenian,  pardes  signifies  a  garden  close  to  the  house,  filled  with 
herbage,  flowers,  and  grass.  Hitzig  and  Heiligs.  derive  the  word 
from  the  old  Sanscrit  jorarfepa,  which  means  an  enclosure,  like  the 
Heb.  "^  .  Still,  a  pleasure-ground  would  be  enclosed,  and  would 
naturally  contain  trees  and  bushes  of  every  kind,  and  specially 
fruit-trees.  The  Arabians  use  the  word,  and  the  Persians  seem  to 
have  derived  it  from  them.  It  belongs  only  to  the  later  Hebrew. 
In  the  older  Heb.,  '|'is>  "^l  designates  the  place  where  Adam  was 
originally  stationed.  Gen.  2  :  8,  10.  13  :  10.  —  QfiS  ,  in  them,  de- 
notes that  both  the  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds  were  planted 
with  fruit-trees  ;  comp.  Cant.  4:13. 

(6)  I  made  for  myself  pools  of  water,  for  watering  from  them  the  forest 
shooting  up  trees. 

niD'ns  with  -  immutable  in  regimen,  §  93.  l,in  e.g.  The  first 
meaning  of  Tlt]^  is  to  kneel,  so  that  t^'^^,^  lit.  designates  a  hneeling- 
place,  viz.  for  camels  when  they  drink.  Hence  a  pool,  a  watering- 
place.  The  design  of  the  pools  is  described  in  the  sequel,  viz.  to 
supply  water  for  the  trees.  See  the  jooo/  of  the  king,  Neh.  2  ;  14, 
which  the  Jews  held,  and  not  improbably,  to  have  been  con- 
structed by  Solomon.  —  'TPT'^  is  properly  a  neut.  intrans.,  but 
still  it  is  followed  by  the  Ace.  n'^^ j)  ,  which  is  often  employed  to 
designate  the  object  in  respect  to  or  as  to  which  the  assertion  of  the 
verb  or  Part,  is  made,  §  117.  3.  Comp.  Prov.  10:  31.  24  :  31. 
Is.  34  :  13,  for  like  specimens  of  the  Ace. 

(7)  I  procured  servants  and  handmaids,  and  those  born  in  the  house  be- 
longed to  me ;  much  property  also  in  herds  and  flocks  belonged  to  me,  more 
than  all  [possessed]  who  were  before  me  in  Jerusalem. 

'in'^i)^  often  means  to  buy  or  purchase,  which  I  take  to  be  the 
sense  here,  although  my  translation  does  not  imply  it  of  necessity. — 
n';in"'^i3  ,  sons  of  the  house,  was  the  softer  Heb.  appellation  o{  slaves. 
It  designates  such  as  were  born  of  bond-women  in  the  houses  of 
their  masters  ;  for,  by  universal  custom,  the  children  followed  the 
condition  of  the  mother  ;  Gen.  14:14.  15  :  2,  3.  Sometimes  they 
are  called  n';'^  ^"}^'b^, ;  at  others,  n^i<  "^sa .  —  "^h  ri^n ,  lit.  there 
was  to  me  =  I  had,  or  possessed.  On  this  ground,  i.  e.  because 
the  meaning  of  a  verb  active  is  really  designated,  the  Ace.  (sons 


Chap.  II.  8.  129 

of  the  house)  is  placed  after  lTr\ ;  see  like  cases  in  Gen.  47 :  24. 
Ex.  12 :  49.  28  :  7.  Num.  9  :  iV.  15  :  29.  Deut.  18  :  2.  2  Chron. 
17  :  lo,  where  n^rt  disngrees  with  its  subject,  either  in  number  or 
gender,  i.  e.  it  is  used  in  a  kind  of  impersonal  way.  —  *,x:i,  ren- 
dered ^oc^-5,  includes  both  sheep  and  r/oafs.  —  Above  all  before  me, 
etc,  i.  e.  above  all  kiiigs  who  were  before  him  (comp.  1:  IG)  ;  for 
surely  a  king  would  compare  himself,  in  such  a  case,  only  with 
his  equals  in  office.  See  the  remarks  on  1:  IG.  For  the  illustration 
of  abundance  in  such  possessions,  see  Gen.  12  :  IG.  Job  1:3. 

(8)  I  heaped  up  for  myself  both  silver  ami  gold,  and  tlie  trensures  of  kings 
and  provinces ;  1  procured  for  myself  sinjrin<r-mcn  and  singing-women,  and 
the  dch'glit  of  the  sons  of  men,  a  wife  and  wives. 

Riches  were  of  course  to  be  expected  among  the  train  of  experi- 
ments. In  these,  Solomon  abounded  above  all.  —  The  treasures  of 
kings,  viz.  such  as  are  brought  to  view  inlK.  5:1.  10:15.  4:21. 

—  And  provinces,  viz.  such  as  the  12  provinces  mentioned  in  1  K. 
4  :  7  seq.  comp.  v.  20,  which  were  divisions  of  the  kingdom  for  the 
purpose  of  collecting  revenue,  rij"*"!^  is  a  word  belonging  to  the 
later  Hebrew  only.  The  article  before  the  plur.  in  the  text,  refers 
to  well-known  provinces  ;  comp.  1  K.  20  :  15,  and  Ps.  45  :  17  (16). 
As  to  riches  in  general,  see  1  K.  10 :  27  seq.  2  Chron.  1: 16.  9  :  20. 

—  Singing-men  and  singing-women  were  a  part  of  the  usual  ac- 
companiments of  feasting  ;  2  Sam.  19  :  35.  Compare  the  allusions 
to  the  like  custom,  in  Is.  5:12.  Amos  6 :  5,  6. 

n'i'H';:')  mt::  has  been  the  theme  of  much  conjecture  and  dispute. 
Still,  it  would  seem  that  a  plain  path  has  at  last  been  oj)encd  by 
Ilitzig.  It  is  certain  that  n-'rsrn ,  in  Cant.  7  :  7,  refers  to  amo- 
rous delight ;  as  the  Latins  sometimes  use  deliciae.  It  is  plain 
that  Solomon,  beyond  any  other  Jewish  king  that  we  know  of, 
was  addicted  to  such  pleasures  ;  see  1  K.  1 1:  3.  Cant.  G :  8.  Again, 
this  kind  of  pleasure  is  nowhere  referred  to  in  the  context ;  and 
we  can  hardly  conceive  that  it  would  be  entirely  omitted  in  such 
a  case  as  his,  for  he  had  700  wives  and  300  concubines.  More- 
over, the  sujgular  here  (irnd),  and  then  the  plur.  ni^d ,  agrees 
w^ell  with  the  fact,  that  there  was  one,  the  proper  queen,  who  was 
Solomon's  b:'j  (Ps.  45  :  10),  i.  e.  spouse  in  the  higher  sense  (see 
1  K.  3  :  1.  7:8),  and  that  he  also  had  many  subordinate  wives. 
In  accordance  with  the  characteristic  traits  of  Solomon's  life,  this 


130  Chap.  IL  9,  10. 

circumstance  is  put  last,  as  being  the  highest  point  or  summit  of 
his  efforts  to  obtain  enjoyment.  The  stem  of  the  word  appears 
to  be  "nyj,  from  which  the  derivate  rrid  comes,  with  3  assimilated 
and  expressed  by  Dagh.  f.,  as  elsewhere  often.  This  verb  is 
used  in  Arabic,  and  in  the  third  Conj.  (='^3^^d),  it  means,  ^o 
take  into  one's  arms,  to  embrace,  to  enclose  around  the  neck,  etc. 
The  derivate  noun,  with  73  prefixed,  means  in  Arabic  holster, pillow, 
and  then  is  figuratively  employed,  as  in  our  text.  So  the  Greek 
Xt/og,  a  couch,  a  marriage-couch,  also  a  spouse.  The  endless 
conjectures  of  commentators  respecting  these  words,  are  hardly 
worth  recounting  and  refuting,  when  the  case  seems  so  plain  as 
here.  Inasmuch  as  the  words  are  ana^  XsyojAsva,  it  is  proper, 
of  course,  to  resort  to  a  kindred  language  for  illustration  ;  and 
this  makes  a  congruous  meaning  quite  plain.  It  would  seem  as 
if  dispute  might  henceforth  be  superseded  ;  for  the  meaning  thus 
obtained  fits  the  passage  exactly,  and  supplies  a  necessary  desid- 
eratum in  the  list  of  objects  which  had  been  pursued. 

(9)  And  I  waxed  great,  and  increased  more  than  all  who  were  in  Jerusa- 
lem before  me ;  my  wisdom  also  continued  with  me. 

Waxed  great  in  the  same  sense  as  in  Gen.  24:  35.  26 :  13. 
Job  1:  3,  i.  e.  in  the  sense  of  acquiring  large  possessions  ov  prop- 
erty. —  Above  all  before  me  in  Jerusalem,  see  on  v.  7.  —  ry'r\  sing. 
because  Vs  is  so.  —  t^'^^S'  continued,  stood  firm,  abode,  Ps.  102  : 
27.  Jer.  48:  11,  seq.  In  v.  3  he  tells  us,  that  he  indulged  in 
wine  under  the  guidance  of  wisdom  or  discretion.  Here  he  tells 
us,  that  his  discretion  was  ever  retained,  in  the  midst  of  all  his 
various  indulgences.  In  other  words :  He  never  gave  himself 
up  to  immoderate  and  excessive  indulgences,  but  acted  as  a  sober 
man,  earnestly  making  experiments  in  order  to  learn  what  the 
true  good  is.  Tempered  by  this  same  discretion  were  his  indul- 
gences at  large,  which  he  next  describes. 

(10)  And  all  which  mine  eyes  sought  for  I  withheld  not  from  them;  I 
kept  not  back  my  heart  from  any  joy  ;  for  my  heart  was  cheered  by  all  my 
toil,  and  this  was  my  portion  of  all  my  toil. 

Sought  for,  lit.  asked  for,  demanded.  Of  course  he  means, 
when  he  says  /  kept  not  back,  to  designate  indulgence  only  in 
such  things  as  were  within  his  power.  —  "^ab  (froranb  )  is  hardly 
represented,  as  to  its  Hebrew  meaning,  by  heart.     It  means  the 


CiiAP.  II.  11.  131 

source  of  sensations,  affections,  and  emotions.  AV'e  have  no  one 
word  that  corresponds  wholly  to  it.  SouL  mind,  which  sb  some- 
times means,  is  not  congruous  here.  It  designates  the  self  that 
feels  and  enjoys.  —  nfrb,  Part,  of  a  verb  intrans.,  §  43.  1.  §  49. 
2.  a.  — bs'a ,  ^  ,  i.  e.  '{o  by,  by  reason  of  "3  before  a  noun  designat- 
ing the  cause  or  source  of  the  joy  in  question;  comp.  for  the  like 
sense,  12:  12.  Ps.  28:  7.  2  K.  6:  27.  Prov.  5 :  18.  1  Chron.  20: 

27 By  all  my  toil,  i.  e.  his  toil  was  the  ground  or  source  of  his 

enjoyment.  He  sought  not  for  pleasure  beyond  those  things  on 
whicli  he  bestowed  time  and  pains.  lie  was  not  a  mere  reck- 
less debauchee  or  Epicurean.  —  pbn  means  that  ichich  is  appor- 
tioned or  alloted  to  any  one.  — bs^  here  means  of  or  from  all,  "O 
again  denoting  source,  quasi  out  of 

(11)  Then  I  turned  towards  all  my  works  which  my  hands  had  performed, 
and  towards  the  toil  which  I  had  labored  to  accomplish,  and  lo  !  all  was 
vanity  and  fruitless  effort,  and  there  is  no  profit  under  the  sun. 

One  may  supply  the  verb  to  look  (from  v.  12)  after  '^n*^:Q. 
Plainly,  the  Hebrew  expression  is  elliptical ;  but  that  ellipsis  is 
immediately  supplied  in  the  sequel.  —  Tlie  toil,  etc.,  lieb.  lit.  the 
toil  which  I  had  toiled  to  accomplish.  Our  idiom  hardly  permits 
in  this  case  such  a  mode  of  expression.  —  There  is  no  profit,  etc., 
a  general  proposition ;  for  if  such  things  as  he  had  pursued, 
would  not  afford  any  substantial  good,  then  nothing  else  earthly 
could  do  it,  and  the  proposition  is  generally  true. 


§  4.    The  advantage  of  tvisdom  over  folly  is  of  little  account,  and 
does  not  exempt  from  the  common  lot  of  suffering  and  sorrow. 

II.  12—26. 

[The  writer  lias  now  come  to  the  end  of  his  experiences  in  regard  to  the 
means  of  hapi)iness.  Neither  efforts  to  acfjuire  wisdom,  nor  folly  in  indul- 
gence, will  secure  this,  nor  even  these  combined,  vs.  1  — 11.  He  comes  then 
deliberately  to  incpiire,  whether  irisdom  in  itself  has  any  preeminence  over 
folly.  In  some  respects,  lie  says  it  has;  but  still,  these  arc  not  >ufHcient  to 
exempt  it  from  the  imputation  of  bein^  raniiy ;  for  first,  it  dies  with  every 
man  who  acquires  it,  and  passes  not  on  by  heritage  to  another.  Kvery  one 
must  begin  de  novo  to  acquire  it  for  himself  Next,  it  does  not  cxcni|tt  the 
wise  man  from  the  same  common  lot  with  tlie  fool.  All  are  the  sjiort  of 
accident  alike,  and  all  die  at  last  alike,  and  are  equally  forgotten.  Thirdly, 
a  repulsive  aspect  is  given  to  life,  by  the  fact  that  all  w/iich  one  has  labo- 


132  Chap.  IL  12. 

riously  and  skilfully  toiled  to  acquire,  passes,  at  his  death,  to  others  of  whom 
he  cannot  know  whether  they  will  he  wise  or  foolish.  What  good,  then,  can 
come  to  him,  which  will  compensate  for  all  the  toil  and  suffering  and  wake- 
ful nights  which  he  has  endured,  in  order  to  obtain  substance?  Who  can 
look  on  all  this,  but  with  feelings  of  despair  ? 

The  conclusion  then  to  which  he  comes  is,  that  the  only  real  good  to  be 
derived  from  all,  is  that  which  we  enjoy,  from  day  to  day,  in  the  gratifica- 
tion of  hunger  and  thirst,  and  other  appetites  which  are  the  sources  of  present 
pleasure.  This  is  our  own,  and  we  may  regard  it  as  a  kind  of  good.  But 
even  this,  to  whatever  it  may  amount,  comes  all  from  the  hand  of  God. 
Such  as  are  good  in  his  sight,  i.  e.  the  objects  of  his  favor,  may  sometimes  be 
permitted  to  enjoy  what  the  sinner,  his  enemy,  has  labored  to  provide.  But 
after  all,  even  this  will  not  exempt  the  whole  from  the  category  of  vanity  and 
empty  pursuit.  Such  pleasures  are  too  low  and  fleeting  to  confer  substantial 
good  on  rational  beings.] 

(12)  Then  I  turned  to  contemplate  wisdom  —  even  madness  and  folly; 
for  what  shall  the  man  [do]  who  comes  after  the  king?  Even  that  which  he 
did  long  ago. 

Evidently,  a  new  aspect  of  the  subject  is  introduced  by  this 
verse.  I  have  therefore  rendered  ^  as  a  transition-particle,  as  it 
often  is,  like  xai  in  xal  iyEvero,  etc.  —  ^"9?"  here,  and  generally 
through  this  book,  has  the  sense  of  sagacity,  discreet  wariness, 
or  dexterous  management.  In  the  book  of  Proverbs,  it  often  has 
a  sublinier  moral  sense,  designating  sagacious  religious  and 
moral  demeanor.  This  makes  one  point  of  palpable  distinction 
in  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  two  books.  —  The  words  nibVim 
nM^ap^  are  not  easily  explained  here.  If  we  may  regard  them 
in  the  usual  way,  the  case  is  simple  enough ;  for  this  would  con- 
sider them  as  related  to  nix"i ,  in  the  same  way  as  <^'2Dn  is,  and 
treat  them  as  coordinates  with  the  latter  word,  i.  e.  all  are  in  the 
Ace.  after  the  verb,  and  are  objects  of  the  action  expressed  by 
the  verb.  But  in  1:  17  the  writer,  to  avoid  any  misunderstand- 
ing, has  repeated  the  verb  before  the  two  last  nouns.  Here^ 
however,  he  does  not  do  so.  Moreover,  if  we  adopt  the  exegesis 
just  mentioned,  we  only  make  him  to  repeat  here,  what  he  has 
already  said  in  1:17.  In  the  mean  time,  the  context  shows,  that 
he  had  done  what  was  proposed  in  1:  17.  Why  should  he  speak 
here  as  if  he  were  now  about  to  commence  the  process,  when  in 
fact  he  has  already  been  through  it  ?  It  would  rather  seem,  then, 
that  some  result  of  his  investigation  is  here  designated ;  for  the 
clause  that  follows,  shows  that  no  other  person  can  do  anything 


CiiAP.  II.  12.  133 

more  tliaii  tlic  king  hus  done  ;  for  sucli  person  can  only  repeat 
what  has  already  been  done,  and  done  so  as  to  come  to  a  result. 
This  result  then  must  stand,  if  the  investigator  is  competent ;  and 
it  is  to  be  regarded  as  correct.  It  has  been  suggested,  tliat  folli/ 
is  here  a  second  object  in  the  Ace,  so  as  to  give  tlie  chiuse  this 
turn  :  to  contemplate  wisdom  as  folhj^  i.  e.  to  regard  it  in  the 
light  of  folly.  The  whole  of  the  first  clause  would  then  signify, 
that  he  addressed  himself  to  the  effort  of  considering  wisdom  in 
this  light.  But  to  be  told  that  he  set  out  with  such  a  design  in 
view,  sounds  rather  strange.  He  may  come  to  such  a  result,  but 
would  hardly  propose  it  beforehand  as  an  object  or  design  which 
he  had  in  view.  Moreover,  the  double  Aec,  in  such  a  case, 
seems  doubtful,  if  we  compare  Judg.  9  :  3G.  It  appears  more 
probable,  that  madness  and  folly  aie  the  result  which  he  finds  in 
respect  to  the  wisdom  here  spoken  of;  comp.  Zech,  U:  6.  Is. 
66  :  3.  Jer.  17:2,  for  like  cases  of  residt.  Such  wisdom  ends  in 
nothing  essentially  better  than  folli/.  And  so  the  sequel  goes  on 
to  show.  All  would  be  i)lain,  if  there  stood  before  ribbini 
n^bsp-i  the  usual  pxt  cr«  or  r\:n.  But  brachylogy  or  pathos  may 
have  occasioned  the  omission  of  them.  In  the  sequel,  the  writer 
has  shown  that  although  wisdom,  in  itself  considered,  and  regard 
being  paid  only  to  its  proper  nature,  is  preferable  to  folly,  yet  in 
its  results,  it  has  nothing  to  boast  of.  This  the  various  consider- 
ations subsequently  suggested  plainly  serve  to  show.  We  have 
then  this  sense:  To  consider  wisdom  (which  is  even  madness 
and  folly)  ;  for,  etc. 

The  last  half  of  the  verse  has  received  a  great  variety  of  expo- 
sitions. The  history  of  them  would  not  be  very  instructive. 
Enough,  if  the  sense  can  be  made  plain.  —  "3  is  causal,  as  usujU, 
i.  e.  it  assigns  a  ground  or  reason  for  admitting  the  preceding 
declaration.  It  is  as  much  as  to  say:  This  is  t rue, y^;- no  one 
can  better  investigate,  or  better  come  to  a  conclusion,  in  regju'd  to 
this  matter,  than  the  king  (Coheleth,  1:  12),  who  has  already 
examined  it.  —  nnxn  n^:,  what  shall  the  man  [do],  etc.,  plainly 
implying  the  verb  nrr-,  as  in  Mai.  2:  15  it  is  of  necessity  im- 
plied. U  iv/io  wei-e  the  sense  recpiired,  then  should  we  have  "^"Q. 
instead  of  n-:.  This  last  is  the  Ace.  after  the  verb  implied.  The 
article  here  stands  before  D7X,  regarded  as  a  specific  individual, 
viz.  the  king's  successor,  i.  e.  he  icho  comes  after  the  king.  The 
12 


134  Chap.il  12. 

question  is,  whether  he  can  do  anything  better  than  has  ah-eady 
been  done  by  the  king  before  him,  and  so  make  out  a  different 
result.  The  answer  follows :  £ven  that  which  he  long  ckjo  did, 
i.  e.  he  can  only  repeat  the  same  process,  and  come  to  the  same 

result. sinsibr   may   be    disposed   of,   in   two    different    ways. 

Usually,  it  is  taken  (as  it  is  pointed)  for  the  3d  pers.  plur.  imper- 
sonal, what  they  did,  i.   e.  other  men  — a  verb  with  an   indef. 
Nom.  §  134.  3.     This  would  be  well  enough,  if  in  it  were  con- 
tained a  good  reason  why  wisdom  is  found  to  be  folly.     But  the 
simple  fact,  that  nothing  new  can  be  done,  has  no  direct  bearing 
on  the  proposition  to  be  estabhshed.     But  if  the  writer  can  bring 
forward  his  own  experience,  after  such  long  and  thorough  trials 
as  he  has  made  in  regard  to  this  matter,  then  the  conclusion  to 
which  he  has  come  would  seem  to  be  stable.     Accordingly,  we 
may  (with  Hitzig)  point  thus  :  !",!-iibs;.    That  the  Lif.  const,  of  this 
verb,  in  several  cases,  omits  the  usual  final  n,  and  is  pointed  as  a 
regular  verb,  is  clear  from  Gen.  50  :  20.  Prov.  21:3.  Ps.  101  :  3 
(followed  by  a  Gen.),  and  Exod.  18:18,  where  the  very  form  in 
question  occurs  with  a  sufftx,  in  the  same  manner  which  is  now 
proposed.     We  then  obtain  for  the  meaning :  the  doing  of  him, 
i.  e.  what  he  did.     The  'nrx  nx  of  course  is  in  the  Ace,  and  is 
dependent  on  nirr;:  implied!     So :  [He  shall  do]  what  long  ago 
was  his  [the  king's]  doing.    In  other  words  :  He  may  repeat  the 
experiment,  but  can  never  alter  the  conclusion,  for  he  can  never 
repeat  it  to  any  better  advantage.     Consequently,  the  conclusion 
indicated  by  the  first  clause  must  remain  unshaken.     Heiligstedt, 
in  his  recent  commentary,  comes  out  with  this  strange  result :  '  I 
compared  wisdom  and  folly,  in  order  to  know  what  sort  of  a  fool- 
ish man  he  would  be,  who  should  succeed  the  king,  in  comparison 
with  him  (nrN;  rx),  whom  they  long  ago  made  king ;'  which  he 
explains  by  saying,  that  the  design  is  to  point  out  Rehoboam,  the 
successor  of  Solomon,  who  was  long  ago  made  king,  and  who,  as  he 
strongly  suspects,  will  overturn  his  father's  wise  institutions.  — 
This  seems,  to  me  at  least,  to  be  almost  '^  a  new  thing  under  the 
sun."    And  yet  he  even  has  the  assurance  to  say,  at  the  close : 
«  No  one  of  the  other  interpretations  of  this  verse  aptum  sensum 
habet."     But  to  refute  his  interpretation  would  be  little  less  than 
a  loss  of  time,  and  to  small  purpose,  since  the  language  and  drift 
of  sentiment  in  the  text  are  so  utterly  at  variance  with  him. 


Chap.  II.  13,  14.  135 

Hitzig   lias   ably  defended   the  sentiment  which  I  have   f^iven 
above. 

From  tlie  view  tluis  taken  of  sagacifi/  or  loisdom,  considered  in 
respect  to  its  j)ower  of  conferring  solid  and  husting  happiness,  the 
writer  turns,  for  a  moment,  to  the  consideration  of  the  natural 
and  essential  ditlerence  between  wisdom  and  folly  in  themselves 
considered,  or  viewed  merely  in  respect  to  their  proper  nature. 
This  difi'erence  he  hits  expressed  in  the  sequel. 

(13)  I  saw,  moreover,  tliat  there  is  an  excellence  of  wisdom  over  folly,  like 
the  excellence  of  li^ht  over  darkness. 

In  taking  another  view  of  the  matter,  he  felt  himself  compelled 
to  yield  to  the  superior  claims  of  wisdom,  in  respect  to  its  nature. 
It  gives  insight  into  things,  and  explains  many  of  them  which 
must  remain  dark  to  folly.  —  'ji-ir'^ ,  projit,  excellence^  lit.  something 
over  ajid  above.  —  "p  ,  iji  comparison  ivith,  more  than,  over.  The 
light  and  the  darkness  are  both  specific  and  monadic  objects,  to 
which  the  article  is  properly  prefixed,  ad  libitum  scriptoris ;  in 
English  it  is  quite  useless  here.  The  preeminence  asserted  is 
illustrated  and  confirmed  by  the  next  verse. 

(14)  The  eyes  of  the  wise  man  arc  in  hU  head,  but  the  fool  walketh  in 
darkness;  yet  still  I  know,  even  I,  that  one  destiny  awaits  them  all. 

To  say  that  one's  eyes  are  in  his  head,  means  that  he  has  eyes, 
and  that  they  are  in  their  proper  place  and  will  be  appropriately 
employed,  i.  e.  that  the  man  who  has  them  will  employ  them  to 
see.  But  the  fool,  who  has  no  mental  eye,  who  is  nb  "px,  must  of 
course  walk  in  darkness.  So  far  as  there  is  naturally  a  'I'lin'^ , 
then,  it  is  on  the  side  of  the  wise  man  ;  for  who  does  not  prefer 
light  to  darkness  ?  Yet  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  djishes  down, 
in  the  main,  the  hopes  which  any  one  might  be  inclined  to 
cherish,  from  the  circumstance  of  the  essential  difference  between 
the  two.  One  destiny  awaits  all ;  i.  e.  they  have  after  all  a  com- 
mon lot;  all  are  subject  to  toil  and  suflTering  and  death,  to  loss  of 
property,  loss  of  friends,  and  loss  of  hopes.  —  ^'^'^^, ,  overtake,  hap- 
pen  to.  —  zk'D ,  all  of  them,  \VA.  both  the  wise  and  foolish.  The 
Hholem  in  Vs,  goes  into  the  short  vowel  Qibbuts  in  the  sufli'. 
state,  §  9.  10.  3. 


136  Chap.  II.  15—17. 

(15)  Then  I  said  in  my  heart :  As  is  the  destiny  of  the  fool,  so  also  will  it 
happen  to  myself;  and  why  then  should  1  be  wise  over  much  ?  Then  said  I 
in  my  heart:  This  also  is  vanity. 

*i5X,  I,  prefixed  to  the  verb  which  has  the  suff.  of  the  same  pro- 
noun. ^3  —  me,  after  a  preceding  "^sx ,  is  a  construction  which  we 
cannot  imitate.  The  force  of  it,  however,  is  expressed  in  the 
translation  myself.  It  makes  the  word  me  very  emphatic.  See 
the  like  in  Gen.  24 ;  27.  Ezek.  33;  17,  al.  saepe. — tx,  then, 
Hitzig  remarks,  refers  to  the  close  of  life,  when  all  his  experience 
has  been  had.  But  it  is  enough  to  assume  a  point  when  his  con- 
victions are  full.  —  This  also  is  vanity^  viz.  the  strife  to  become 
overmuch  wise,  i.  e.  wiser  than  all  others.  I  take  icx  (ir)  to  be 
here  only  the  sign  of  quotation,  like  on  in  Greek.  The  next 
verse  adds  a  new  reason  for  the  conclusion  to  which  he  has  come. 

(16)  For  to  the  wise  man  with  the  fool  there  is  no  remembrance  forever, 
because  that  long  since,  (in  days  that  are  to  come),  every  one  is  forgotten. 
And  how  dieth  the  wise  man  like  the  fool ! 

With  the  fool,  D^'  with  designates  a  communion  of  lot  or  condi- 
tion, as  well  as  with  in  the  usual  sense  of  association.  We  might 
translate  as  well  as,  or  as,  for  both  parties  are  associated  under  a 
common  category,  and  of  both  the  same  destiny  is  announced ; 
see  Lex.  ds?  ,  B.  1.  e.  —  ^Y'^\  .  .  .  .  ■,ix  =  iiever,  so  that  we  might 
translate  :  There  never  will  be  any  remembrance.  —  The  "ins ,  long 
ago,  long  since,  applies  to  a  stand-point  in  future  time,  during 
days  that  are  to  come,  as  this  future  is  expressed  in  the  Hebrew. 
That  is,  in  future  time  the  day  will  arrive,  when  both  the  wise 
and  the  foolish  will  have  been  long  forgotten.  —  D-^xsn  D'^^^fi 
are  the  Ace.  of  time,  §  IIG.  2.  —  rpx  for  hd^x,  made  up  of  ^x 
and  n3 ,  quo  modo,  how,  or  alas  !  an  exclamation  of  grief.  —  J^^^^^ 
Imperf ,  to  designate  what  is  continued  or  often  repeated.  The 
consideration  of  such  a  matter  forces  a  sigh  from  the  writer, 
which  is  expressed  in  the  exclamation  that  he  utters.  It  is  as 
much  as  to  say :  '  Alas  !  that  all  should  share  the  same  destiny  ! ' 

(17)  Then  I  hated  life,  for  the  deeds  that  are  done  under  the  sun  were 
odious  to  me ;  for  all  is  vanity  and  worthless  effort. 

The  phrase  i^s*  rn  lit.  means  an  evil  upon  me,  where  the  bs 
indicates  the  burdensome  consequence  of  the  evil,  lying  upon  him, 


Chap.  II.  18—20.  137 

or  pressing  him  down,  r"^  is  by  no  means  confined  to  moral 
evil.  It  designates  anything  grievous  or  incommodious.  —  Deeds 
that  were  done,  viz.  sucli  things  as  men  are  engaged  in  doing, 
comp.  1:14.  The  doings  of  God  are  not  inchided  in  tiiese.  To 
these  the  author  assigns  another  and  a  different  character ;  see 
3:  11,  14. 

(18)  Yea,  I  hated  all  the  toil  which  1  had  performed  under  the  sun,  be- 
cause I  must  leave  it  to  the  man  who  shall  be  after  me. 

•'b^r  means,  wJint  I  have  acquired  by  toil  here,  inasmuch  as  this 
only  could  be  inherited  by  posterity.  —  h-zv,  Part,  for  verb,  as 
frequently  everywhere  in  this  book.  Moreover,  the  Part,  best 
designates  continued  action.  —  ^irn-^rx ,  from  n^2  with  suff.,  see  Lex. 
in  liiph.  B.  For  suff.,  see  Parad.  p.  289.  —  ^nnx ,  in  Pause. 
This  evil  of  transferring  to  another  the  fruits  of  toil,  is  aggravated 
by  another  circumstance,  which  he  proceeds  to  name. 

(19)  And  who  knowcth  whether  he  will  be  a  wise  man  or  a  fool  ?  And 
yet  he  will  have  power  over  all  my  toil  which  1  have  performed,  and  on 
which  I  have  exercised  my  sagacity,  under  the  sun.     This  too  is  vanity. 

The  1  before  mV-^?  I  have  rendered,  as  the  sense  requires,  by 
and  yet  —  a  meaning  not  unfrequent  of  ^.  The  two  verbs  that 
follow  might  be  well  rendered  :  have  sagaciously  laboured;  §  139. 
3.  That  a  fool  should  have  the  disposal  of  property  acquired  by 
sagacity,  makes  the  toil  doubly  a  vanity.  The  writer  of  this 
book  plainly  does  not  hold  fools  in  much  estimation.  For  the 
pointing  of  n  interrog.  in  Drnn ,  see  Lex.  n ,  Note  d. 

(20)  Then  I  turned  to  make  my  heart  despair,  in  respect  to  all  the  toil 
which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun. 

■>ri-2D  is  turning  from  one  occupation  in  order  to  engage  in 
another,  while  nrj  and  n:s  mean,  turning  in  order  to  see  or  be- 
hold anything  ;  see  7  :  25.  1  Sam.  22  :  18,  for  the  first  case. 
For  the  two  latter  verbs,  see  v.  12.  4  :  1,  7.  9:11.  Disappoint- 
ed in  all  his  toil,  and  in  view  of  what  was  speedily  to  become 
of  that  which  he  had  ac(iuin'd,  he  set  himself  to  despair  of  the 
whole  matter.  —  -rx^  is  Inf.  Picl  of  ds; ;  for  form  see  §  63.  3. 
His  despair  he  proceeds  to  vindicate  by  the  mention  of  an  addi- 
tional evil,  described  in  the  next  verse. 
12* 


138  Chap.  II.  21—24. 

(21 )  For  there  is  a  man  who  has  toiled  with  sagacity,  and  intelligence,  and 
with  dexterity,  but  to  a  man  who  has  never  toiled  for  it  he  mu^st  leave  his 
portion ;  this  too  is  vanity  and  a  sore  evil. 

The  idea,  that  one  who  never  made  an  effort  to  acquire,  is  to 
bear  rule  over  what  another  has  acquired  by  his  sagacious  and 
successful  toil,  is  very  grating  to  a  sensitive  mind.  It  gives  a 
despairing  aspect  to  human  effort.  The  writer  feels  it  deeply,  and 
names  it  nsn  nrn ,  an  intensity  of  expression  not  before  employed. 

(22)  For  what  is  there  for  a  man  in  all  his  toil  and  the  strenuous  effort  of 
his  heart,  which  he  has  performed  under  the  sun? 

What  is  there,  etc.,  i.  e.  there  is  nothing  —  iiin ,  Part,  of  nin , 
later  Hebrew,  or  rather  Aramaean,  =  n-n .  —  •|'i^^"n  is  intensive 
'here,  as  it  is  designed  to  be  climactic. 

^23)  For  all  his  days  are  grievous,  and  harassing  his  employment;  even 
by  night  his  heart  is  not  quiet.     This  too  is  vanity. 

Hitzig  and  Ewald  take  ^3  here  in  the  sense  of  truly,  surely ;  a 
meaning  that  it  sometimes  has,  where  it  is  true,  or  it  is  so,  etc., 
may  be  easily  supplied.  If  the  preceding  question,  however,  is 
regarded  as  a  negative,  (and  so  I  have  taken  it),  then  is  ^3  causal, 
as  it  assigns  a  good  reason  for  the  negative.  It  is,  in  one  aspect, 
a  new  suggestion.  The  question  might  be  asked  :  Whether  men 
might  not  enjoy  themselves  in  their  labour  and  their  efforts  ? 
The  verse  before  us  seems  to  answer  this  question  :  All  his  days 
are  sorrows,  i.  e.  sorrowful,  grievous.  —  A7id  vexation  or  harass- 
ing his  employment ;  i.  e.  instead  of  comfort  and  ease,  his  efforts 
have  been  sources  of  suffering  and  vexation.  His  solicitude  will 
not  even  let  him  sleep  at  night.  His  mind  is  disquieted  with 
plans  and  disappointments.  But  surely  this  proposition  must 
appertain  only  to  such  excessive  and  ambitious  pursuits,  as  make 
life  a  bustle  and  a  scene  of  disquietude.  Occupation,  business, 
of  some  kind  or  other,  is  essential  to  man's  being,  or  at  least  to 
his  well-being.  "  Labor  ipse  voluptas."  Coheleth,  then,  must  be 
regarded  as  having  special  reference  here  to  a  bustling  life,  en- 
gaged in  by  reason  of  ambition  or  avarice,  or  with  erroneous 
expectations  of  finding  solid  and  lasting  happiness  in  worldly 
concerns. 

(24)  There  is  nothing  better  for  man,  than  that  he  should  eat  and  drink, 
and  enjoy  good  in  his  toil ;  even  tliis  1  have  seen,  that  it  is  from  the  hand  of 
God. 


CiiAP.  II.  25,  2G.  139 


The  shape  of  tlie  first  clause  shows,  that  the  sense  is  such  as  I 
have  expressed  in  the  version  above.  —  21:3 ,  as  in  the  compar. 
den^rcc,  shouhl  be  followed  by  "2 .  So  in  3  :  22,  n*:r"'  "^~*X'C  zi'J  , 
better  i/ian  that  he  should  rejoice.  The  rciadinfr  re(|iiired  here 
seems  to  be  brx'^r': ,  and  the  *2  may  liave  been  dropped  in  tran- 
scribing, because  another  "0  immediately  precedes.  —  In  tnsa , 
the  3  takes  the  same  place  which  h  elsewhere  sometimes  occupies 
in  this  book;  see  6:  12.  8:  15.  So  is  it  with  2  in  3  :  12,  C2, 
for  them;  and  so  is  it  twice  with  2  in  10:  17.  —  Make  himself 
happy  in  his  toil,  lit.  make  his  soul  to  see  good.  Comp.  on  2  :  1. 
Even  this  (ni  tern,  and  neut.)  is  from  the  hand  of  God,  i.  e.  even 
such  enjoyment  is  not  secured  by  our  own  efforts.  God  alone 
bestows  all  blessings.  Without  his  favour  and  aid,  all  human 
efforts  are  b^r: .     Comp.  3:13.   5:18. 

(25)  For  y\\\o  can  eat,  and  who  can  enjoy  himself,  without  him  1 

The  Ileb.  text,  as  ifc  now  stands,  says,  in  the  last  clause,  more 
than  I  ?  That  is  :  '  Who  can  better  say  what  the  good  is  of  eat- 
ing, etc.,  than  I,  who  have  had  so  much  experience,  and  enjoyed 
so  much?'  But  if  with  the  Se})t.,  Syr.,  Jerome,  Ewald,  Ileiligs., 
and  riitzig,  we  adopt  the  reading  ^il'sri ,  without  him,  (as  I  have 
done),  the  sense  is  seemingly  more  appropriate.  It  runs  thus : 
^  Who  can  enjoy  the  good  of  his  labour  without  the  divine  bless- 
ing ? '  lie  had  just  said,  that  to  God,  and  not  to  his  own  etlbrts, 
this  enjoyment  was  to  be  attributed.  This  latter  translation,  also, 
better  suits  the  sense  of  j'^in ,  which  means  extra,  without,  i.  e. 
apart  from  him.  See  Lex.  for  rin ,  and  also  I'ln .  The  union 
of  '{2  Y'T\  occurs  nowhere  else  in  Ileb. ;  but  it  is  frequent  in  the 
Talmud  and  among  the  Rabbins. 

(26)  For  to  the  man  who  is  well-pleasiiif,'  in  liis  si;;ht,  hath  he  given 
sagacity,  aii<l  intellij;cncc,  and  enjoyment;  hut  to  the  sinner  liath  he  given 
the  task  of  gathering  and  amassing,  that  it  may  he  given  to  him  who  is  well- 
pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.     This  too  is  vanity  and  fruitless  eftbrt. 

Well-pleasing,  a^i::,  does  not  mean  good  here  in  the  sense  of 
holy,  but  designates  merely  the  idea  of  one  regarded  in  a  favour- 
able light ;  so  in  Neh.  2:5.  1  Sam.  29  :  6.  Of  course,  xii'in , 
the  opposite  here  of  "2^'^ ,  means  in  this  case  one  who  is  offensive 
to  God  ;  for  ^^:l^  is  of  course  implied  after  it.  —  rrb  lit. /br  the 
giving.  Inf.  of  "|r3 . 


140  Chap.  II. 

But  what  is  it  which  is  vanity  and  a  fruitless  affair?  Surely, 
not  the  distribution  which  God  makes ;  and  not  the  scraping  to- 
gether of  treasure,  for  this  has  already  been  denounced  in  vs. 
17,  18.  We  can  therefore  do  no  less  than  fall  back  on  v.  24, 
and  refer  it  to  the  effort  to  obtain  enjoyment  in  the  way  which  is 
there  spoken  of;  not,  indeed,  an  enjoyment  which  is  altogether 
satisfactory  in  itself,  but  only  such  as  is  more  promising  than 
that  obtained  by  other  efforts  and  pursuits.  But  even  this,  al- 
though the  portion  which  God  gives,  and  although  it  is  to  be 
gratefully  received,  is  still,  compared  with  good  which  is  great 
and  true,  and  lasting,  little  less  than  vanity  and  a  fruitless  affair. 
Under  the  circumstances  before  us,  we  can,  of  course,  give  to 
these  last  words  here  only  a  limited  and  comparative  sense.  Ab- 
solute vanity  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruit  of  one's  labour  is  not ; 
but  in  comparison  with  the  enjoyment  which  a  rational  and  im- 
mortal being  is  capable  of,  in  comparison  with  a  happiness  unin- 
terrupted, solid,  and  lasting,  all  this  is  vanity. 

Thus  we  are  brought,  step  by  step,  after  passing  prominent 
particulars  in  review,  to  the  general  conclusion,  that  no  possessions 
or  pursuits  of  men  secure  the  good  which  they  need  and  seek  for; 
and  that  the  most  we  can  make  out  of  all  these,  is  the  enjoyment 
which  we  experience  from  the  actual  satisfying  of  the  wants  and 
cravings  of  our  physical  nature.  Even  this  is  not  the  result  of  our 
own  efforts  merely,  but  is  bestowed  upon  us  by  the  special  favour 
of  God. 

Such  is  the  conclusion  of  a  most  acute  observer,  a  man  endowed  with  high 
intellectual  powers,  and  who  sought  for  wisdom  and  knowledge,  in  all  the 
various  ways  practicable  at  the  time  when  he  lived.  But  what  was  science  or 
philosophy  then,  and  specially  what  Avere  tliey  among  the  Hebrews,  who  never 
set  up  any  academies  or  colleges  for  the  study  of  science  and  philosophy  ? 
How  different,  we  may  well  believe,  would  be  the  conclusions  of  the  same 
investigator,  in  some  respects,  and  to  a  certain  extent,  were  he  now  to  re- 
appear and  come  among  us,  and  again  make  his  experiments  !  In  his  day, 
all  that  science  could  oflfer  of  satisfaction,  in  tlie  pursuit  of  it,  was  meagre 
indeed,  and  very  unsatisfactory  to  an  active  and  inciuisitivc  mind.  In  a  little 
time,  such  an  one  would  come,  by  diligent  study,  to  the  ne  plus  ultra  ;  and 
well  might  he  call  it  vanity  and  an  em})iy  pursitit.  But  at  the  present  time,  the 
same  inquirer  might  turn,  in  scores  of  directions,  and  find  enough  busily  to 
engage  his  whole  life  and  much  more,  in  any  one  of  the  numerous  sciences. 
He  would  iind,  too,  that  there  was  much  to  instruct  and  to  gratify  the  mind, 
in  each  or  any  one  of  them.    Put  such  a  man  as  Coheleth,  at  the  present  time, 


Chap.  II.  141 

i  n  the  position  of  a  Xcwton.  Laplace,  Lidu};,  Cuvicr,  Owen,  Linnaeus,  Davy, 
Hamilton,  Ilunihohlt,  and  niuliitudcs  of  other  men  in  Europe,  and  in  Amer- 
ica, and  he  would  find  cnou;:h,  in  the  pursuit  of  wisi/cm  imd  hwuhdiji-,  to  fill 
his  soul  with  the  deepest  interest,  and  to  aflbrd  hij:h  ^raiification.  "To  eat, 
and  drink,  and  enjoy  tlie  good  of  one's  toil,"  while  it  is  always  a  gratefal 
blessing,  would  not  even  he  named  in  comparison  with  ])ursuiis  like  theirs. 
How  would  every  true  votary  of  science  now  look  down  on  mere  sensual  grati- 
fications, (important  and  even  necessary  as  they  inii:ht  ho  in  tlieirprojier  place, 
and  in  their  appropriate  measure),  compared  with  the  delight  which  he  would 
experience  in  his  literary  and  scientific  pursuits  !  But  it  does  not  follow  that 
Coheleth  fell  wrongly  or  wrote  erroneously,  at  his  time,  in  respect  to  these 
matters.  Literary  and  scientific  pursuits,  such  as  are  now  common  among  us, 
were,  in  his  day.  hcyond  the  reach  and  heyond  the  knowledge  of  all  then  living ; 
and  how  could  he  reason,  then,  in  reference  to  what  these  pursuits  now  are? 
His  experience  he  honestly,  faithfully,  and  intelligently  lavs  hcfore  us.  His 
conclusions,  made  in  view  of  that  experience,  are  altogether  sober  and  con'cct, 
in  the  sense  and  within  the  limits  that  have  been  explained  ahovc.  How  dif- 
ferent they  would  have  been,  had  they  been  made  in  circumstances  such  as  ours, 
by  such  a  mind  as  that  of  Coheleth,  it  is  very  easy  to  imagine  ;  nay.  one  can- 
not help  the  feeling  that,  in  regard  to  the  pursuit  of  wvWo/h  and  knoichihie  his 
conclusions  would  have  been  very  different,  in  many  respects,  from  what  they 
then  were,  in  the  state  of  things  then  actually  existing.  I  speak  in  this  manner, 
only  in  reference  to  \\\c present  world,  and  the  means  of  promoting  worldly  hap- 
piness or  temporal  enjoyment.  But  if  we  take  a  stand  where  we  must  look 
beyond  this,  and  have  regard  to  the  immori(d  soul  of  man,  and  the  happiness 
of  the  world  to  come,  then  all  the  delights  of  even  science  and  philosophy, 
ardently  pursued,  dwindle  down  to  insignificance,  in  comparison  with  hope  ani- 
mated by  a  living  faith.  All  the  science  or  philosophy  of  the  world  has  never 
made,  and  would  not  and  could  not  make,  one  good  man,  in  the  gospel-sense 
of  this  word  ;  and  all,  therefore,  which  they  could  bestow  on  us.  or  encourage  us 
to  hope  for,  would  be  mere  vmiti/ofcaniiirs  in  comparison  with  the  possession  of 
such  a  faith  and  such  a  hope. 

I  must  add  a  word,  in  order  to  prevent  any  misconccf)tion  of  the  object  of 
these  remarks.  I  believe  Coheleth  to  be  one  of  the  genuine  books  of  the  holy 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  I  bi-lieve  it  to  have  been  in  the  Canon  of  the  O.  Test., 
when  this  was  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  and  therefore,  that  it  is 
to  be  numbered  among  the  inspired  books.  But  inspired  books  may  have  a 
plan  in  view,  and  carry  one  into  execution,  as  well  as  other  books.  The  book 
of  Job  has  a  plan  ;  and  the  hook  of  Proverbs  and  that  of  Canticles  have  each 
a  p/nn  at  their  basis.  I  take  the  plan  of  Coheleth  to  ho,  a  relation  of  vhat  passed 
in  the  mind  0/ a  reasoninr/  man  of  his  time,  a  man  ardent  in  the  jmrsiiit  of  finding 
out  what  are  the  principal  means  nfltapjnness  in  the  present  world,  and  how  one  muit 
demean  himself  amidst  the  incidetits  and  trials  of  life,  in  order  to  secure  some  good 
degree  of  enjoipnent  and  preserve  a  conscience  I'oid  of  offence.  That  the  author  has 
a  deep  and  abiding  sense  of  the  divine  power,  and  sovereignty,  and  wisdom, 
and  goodness,  is  everywhere  apparent ;  (see  Introd.  ^  2.  p.  30scq).  Not  a  word. 
—  amid  all  his  complaints  respecting  the  vanity  and  uncertainty  of  terrestrial 


142  Chap.  II. 

things  —  not  one  word  in  derogation  of  a  superintending  Providence;  not  a 
word  of  apology  for  mistrust  or  want  of  suljmission.  But  all  this  is  the  result 
of  conclusions  to  which  experience  had  led  him,  when  he  sat  down  to  write  his 
book.  Yet  still,  while  he  gives  us  these  conclusions,  he  t.-lls  us  al-o,  at  the 
same  time,  of  the  doubts  and  difficulties  with  wliich  he  had  to  struggle  in  his 
own  mind,  before  he  came  to  them.  He  lays  open  to  our  view  the  process 
throuixh  which  he  had  passed.  The  book  is,  in  fact,  a  kind  of  monologue,  or 
self-dialogue.  The  mind,  in  some  past  attitude,  has  suggested  things  which,  in 
themselves,  are  far  from  being  correct  and  true ;  but,  in  another  and  better  atti- 
tude, it  now  'suggests  things  which  remove  doubts,  or  at  least  extract  from 
objections  their  sting,  and,  in  many  cases,  even  annul  all  their  force.  One 
must  hear  him  to  the  close,  before  he  can  ful  y  decide  what  his  creed  was. 
The  interpreter,  who  overlooks  such  a  plan,  gives  himself  endless  and  useless 
perplexity  to  reconcile  whatever  seems  to  be  at  variance  in  the  book,  and 
which,  if  interpreted  simply  by  the  usual  laws  of  language,  is  indeed  plainly  so. 
It  is  like  the  case  of  Paul  when  he  introduces  the  objector  to  his  doctrines  ; 
for  this  he  often  does,  without  even  giving  any  notice  that  he  is  going  to  do  so. 
So  with  Coheleth.  The  objections  with  which  he  struggled  are  related,  and, 
in  due  time,  are  answered :  not.  it  may  be,  in  our  way  of  attack  and  defence, 
under  the  guidance  of  modern  systematized  logic  and  method,  but  in  a  way 
altogether  accordant  with  the  taste,  and  genius  of  the  Hebrews.  If,  now,  the 
interpreter  undertakes  to  make  ort/todoxy  out  of  these  objections,  which  are 
contrary  to  it,  then  surely  he  undertakes  a  task  which  is  desperate  indeed. 
But  if  he  allows  the  writer  to  present  a  picture  of  the  operations  of  his  own 
mind,  when  in  a  doubting  and  inquiring  state,  then  he  must  concede  to  him 
the  right  of  presenting  the  objections  which  once  wrought  upon  him,  and 
filled  him  with  perplexity.  From  this  poison  he  now  extracts  potent  medicine. 
He  settles  down,  at  last,  on  a  solid  and  immovable  basis,  not  likely  to  be  again 
shaken.  But  one  must  follow  him  through  his  book,  with  his  eye  on  all  this, 
before  he  can  fully  attain  to  the  writer's  ultimatum. 

This  picture  of  a  struggling  mind,  which  comes  off  triumphantly  at  last,  and 
settles  down  on  "fearing  God,  and  keejiing  his  commandinents,"  as  the  way 
to  happiness  and  as  the  sum  of  human  duty,  will  be  felt  by  multitudes  of  like 
struggling  and  inquiring  minds,  to  be  a  resemblance  of  what  passes  within 
themselves.  They  may  therefore  draw, from  the  contemplation  of  such  a  pic- 
ture, much  important  instruction.  But  to  make  it  truly  interesting  and  profit-' 
able,  it  must  be  placed  in  an  appropriate  light,  and  contemplated  fiom  an 
advantageous  station. 

Thus,  in  reviewing  the  ground  so  f^ir  passed  over,  we  must  look  at  the  writer 
in  the  state  in  which  he  truly  was,  with  regard  to  the  pursuit  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  in  order  to  sympathize  with  him  in  respect  to  the  acquisition  of 
these.  In  our  day,  the  pleasure  or  good  that  towers  high  above  all  other  mere 
worldly  enjoyments  and  pursuits,  and  ranks  as  inferior  only  to  true  piety,  is 
the  purfinit  of  knowledge.  This  is  the  high  prerogative  of  man ;  his  excellence 
above  all  the  creation  around  him.  It  would  be  impossible  for  tin  now  to  rea- 
son as  Coheleth  seems  to  do,  in  respect  to  this  :  and  ctiually  impossible  to  deny 
the  truth  of  what  he  said,  at  the  time  when  he  wrote  the  book  which  bears  his 


Chap.  III.  1.  143 

name.  And  even  now.  the  spirit  of  wliat  lie  snid  is  ai)pli(nl)lc  to  all  science 
and  all  knowlcdj^c  of  a  mere  worldly  nature,  when  we  hrinjr  them  into  compe- 
tition with  that  knowledge  which  concerns  the  life  to  come.  "  77</s  is  eternal  life, 
to  know  thee,  the  otifi/  true  (Jod,  anil  ./<sns  C/inst  uhoin  thou  host  s«?//." 

We  have  no  uood  ground,  then,  in  view  of  the  wliole,  to  take  offence  at 
what  Coheleth  has  here  advanced.  He  tuins  it  all.  at  last,  to  good  and  proper 
account.  He  shows,  in  a  ^ivid  and  impressive  manner,  liow  impossihle  it  is 
for  the  world,  and  all  which  is  therein,  to  give  enduring  peace  and  joy  to  the 
soul  of  man,  which  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  has  hreaihed  into  him, 
and  thus  exalted  him  to  a  rank  that  makes  him  aspire  to  something  more  ele- 
vated, more  holy,  and  better  than  all  which  the  world  can  bestow. 


§  5.  Dependence  on  Providence  of  everything  which  can  hofpen, 
or  he  done,  or  enjoyed.  All  is  jixcd  and  immutable  beyond  any 
change  by  the  power  of  man. 

CiiAP.  III.  1—15. 

[The  prolonged  title  given  above,  shows  the  nature  of  the  next  section. 
Vs.  24 — 26  of  chap.  ii.  above  give  express  intimation,  that  whatever  good 
there  is  to  be  enjoyed,  results  from  the  interposition  and  favour  of  God.  The 
mind  of  the  writer  seems  to  be  conducted,  by  those  thoughts,  to  the  contem- 
plation of  the  extent  to  which  this  interposition  goes.  It  extends,  in  his  view, 
to  everything.  All  events,  and  all  the  actions  and  efforts  of  men,  are  under 
the  surveillance  and  guidance  of  a  Being  who  is  wise  and  good;  vs.  1 — 8. 
God  has  given  em|)loyment  to  m.en  ;  he  has  given  them  intelligence  to  discern 
his  works  ;  and  he  has  made  these  his  arrangements  permanent.  That  they 
have  any  enjoyment  conies  from  him  and  is  to  l)e  viewed  as  his  gift.  God  has 
prescribed  bounds  to  all  these  things,  which  we  can  neither  enlarge  nor  dimin- 
ish, for  the  purpose  of  inspiring  men  with  reverence  and  awe  of  him.  He 
steadily  pursues  his  course,  and  causes  the  circle  of  events,  onte  gone  over,  to 
be  renewed,  so  that  all  may  recognize  his  continual  providence,  and  know 
what  they  arc  to  expect  from  the  invariable  coui>c  of  things  which  he  has 
established;  vs.  9 — l.'i.] 

(1)  To  everything  there  is  an  appointed  time,  and  a  season  for  every 
undertaking. 

bbb  to  everything,  i.  e.,  a.s  the  .sequel  shows,  to  all  hiimai)  ac- 
tions and  conditions.  Tlie  article  (which  the  pointing  \  shows) 
is  employed  because  of  totality,  like  to  ndv.  —  '|"it  ,  used  only 
here  and  Neh.  2:6.  Esth.  9:  27,  31.  It  designates  a  defined, 
appointed,  or  certain  time.  —  rr  means  sj)ecially  opportune  sea- 
son or  ti77ie.  —  I'sn  ,  negotiiun,  business,  undertaking.      In   this 


144  Chap.  III.  2—5. 

sense  it  belongs  rather  to  the  later  Hebrew.  The  sentiment  is, 
that  the  when  and  the  where  of  all  actions  and  occurrences,  are 
constituted  and  ordained  of  God.  They  are  not  within  the 
power  of  man,  and  cannot  be  controlled  by  him.  What  is  thus 
announced  here  in  the  way  of  a  general  proposition,  is  confirmed 
by  the  particulars  that  follow  in  vs.  2 — 8.  The  series  of  them 
begins  with  the  birth  and  death  of  every  man,  and  proceeds  with 
recounting  some  of  the  more  striking  actions  and  occurrences  of 
human  life. 

(2)  A  time  for  birth,  and  a  time  for  death  ;  a  time  to  plant,  and  a  time  to 
pluck  up  that  which  is  planted. 

T\^\ ,  Inf.  nominascens,  hirth ;  indicating,  hovfey^v,  parturition  by 
the  mother,  and  not  =  "i5?^<n.  Inf.  pass,  being  horn.  Theb  pre- 
fix prep,  in  both  cases,  is  so  pointed  because  it  stands  before  a 
tone-syllable ;  see  Lex.  h .  What  birth  and  death  are  to  man, 
planting  and  being  plucked  up  are  to  plants  and  trees. 

(3)  A  time  to  kill,  and  a  time  to  heal ;  a  time  to  break  down,  and  a  time 
to  build  up. 

The  killing  and  healing  relate  to  men  ;  the  pulling  down  and 
building  up  have  respect  to  structures,  such  as  houses,  etc. ;  what 
the  former  doings  are  to  men,  the  latter  are  to  edifices,  etc. 

(4)  A  time  to  weep,  and  a  time  to  laugh;  a  time  to  mourn,  and  a  time  to 
dance. 

Weeping  and  moiuming  stand  connected  with  the  dying  and 
killing  of  the  preceding  verses.  Laughing  and  dancing  are 
exhibitions  of  mirth,  and  stand  opposed  to  mourning.  —  "iip">  in- 
stead of  nisb,  because  of  its  assonance  with  ^isp.  The  bis 
omitted  before  the  two  last  Infinitives,  for  the  sake  of  variety  in  ' 
the  construction. 

(5)  A  time  to  cast  abroad  stones,  and  a  time  to  gather  up  stones  :  a  time 
to  emi)race,  and  a  time  to  remove  from  embracing. 

Probably,  the  first  half  of  the  verse  refers  to  casting  stones,  by 
an  invading  enemy,  over  arable  land,  in  order  to  render  it  unfit 
for  cultivation,  (see  2  K.  3:  19,  25);  to  gather  them  up,  is  to 
restore  the  land  again  to  its  useful  state ;  see  Is.  5:2.  —  P'^an 
probably  designates  amorous  embrace;  comp.  Prov.  5:  20.      To 


CiiAi'.  Iir.  G— 10.  145 

refrain  from  this  in  due  time  is  necessary,  if  one  would  guard 
against  enervating  indulgence. 

(fi)  A  tiiiK'  to  scL-k,  ami  a  time  to  lose ;  a  tinio  to  iuvsltvc,  a  time  to  cast 
away. 

To  seek,  viz.  Avitli  the  prospect  of  finding  ;  which  is  the  oppo- 
site of  what  follows.  —  As  "i2X  in  Kal  is  intrans.  and  sometimes 
means,  (o  be  lost,  so  Piel  (nsx )  means,  to  lose  anything.  The 
translation  by  destroi/  here,  interferes  with  vs.  2,  3,  inasmuch  as 
it  would  tiius  make  a  virtual  rei)etition. 

(7)  A  time  to  rend,  aiul  a  time  to  sew  together;  a  time  to  he  silent,  and 
a  time  to  sj)eak. 

The  rending  probably  refers  to  the  rending  of  garments,  on 
the  receipt  of  bad  news,  or  on  the  part  of  mourners.  The  sewing 
together  is  mending  such  rents,  i.  e.  it  indicates  the  time  when 
mourning  is  past.  llie  time  to  be  silent  probably  refers  to 
silence  observed  through  excessive  grief;  see  Job  2:  13.  Of 
course,  the  time  to  speed;  designates  the  period  when  that  excess 
is  past,  and  speaking  is  resumed. 

(8)  A  time  to  love,  and  a  time  to  hate;  a  time  of  war,  and  a  time  of 
peace. 

From  hatred  proceeds  ivar.  Peace  follows  war,  at  last ;  and 
with  this  the  author  ends  his  list  of  particulars.  He  has  marked 
it,  moreover,  by  adopting  jiouns  in  the  last  couplet,  instead  of  the 
Inf.  mode,  which  is  employed  in  all  the  cases  preceding.  Pie 
now  resumes  his  general  declaration,  so  often  made  respecting 
things  which  he  had  tried  by  experience. 

,      (9)   What  is  the  advantage  of  the  doer,  in  that  for  which  he  has  toiled  1 

It  was  for  the  sake  of  raising  this  question,  and  of  the  answer 
which  it  elicits,  that  he  introduced  the  preceding  list  of  doings 
and  occurrences,  which  are  prominent  among  human  efforts  and 
affairs.  He  proceeds  immediately  to  the  answer.  —  rt'i;:*n,  i)arti- 
cipial  noun,  doer,  having  the  article. 

( 10)  I  have  considered  the  task  which  God  hath  given  to  the  sons  of  men, 
to  busy  them  therewith. 

All  these  things   in  which  men  are  engaged,  and  by  which 
13 


146  Chap.  III.  11. 

they  are  affected,  proceed  from  divine  arrangements.  Nothing 
can  be  done  out  of  the  time  allotted  by  God,  and  all  must  be 
done  or  take  place  when  his  time  comes.  So,  more  clearly,  in 
what  follows. 

(11 )  Evcrythin;^'  hath  he  made  beautiful  in  its  season  ;  moreover,  he  hath 
put  intelli,<:cnce  in  their  heart,  without  which  no  man  can  find  out  the  work 
that  God  doeth,  from  l)eginning  to  end. 

Everything  here  depends  mainly  on  the  meaning  of  ^Isa^ 
^"b  nrx.  I  cannot  assent  to  most  of  the  recent  translations  of 
this,  although  by  the  hand  of  masters.  Ges. :  so  that  not  ; 
Herzfeldt,  that  not ;  Knobel,  without  that ;  Ewald,  only  that  not  — 
none  of  which  can  well  be  made  out  from  the  language.  If 
^^2^  means  not,  then  how  could  the  J^b  follow  ?  "i^  of  itself  may 
mean  ivithout,  as  in  Job  21:  9.  Jer.  2:  15.  48:  45  ah  But  yq 
has  many  other  meanings.  In  order  to  make  the  privative 
meaning  certain  here,  ^ba  seems  to  be  added  ;  but  "^^a  is  merely 
an  accessory,  and  not  the' leading  part  of  the  word.  For  "^ba^  as 
meaning  ivithout,  see  also  Zeph.  3:6.  Job  6:6  —  very  plain 
cases.  In  the  same  way  r>?  is  put  after  -q  ,  when  it  means  with- 
out, see  Is.  5  :  9.  Cases  of  ^^3-Q  where  the  t?  means  on  account 
of,  because  of,  such  as  in  Ex.  14:  11.  2  K.  1:  3,  do  not  compare 
with  the  case  now  before  us.  Only  that  would  in  Heb.  be  ^3  D£5< , 
and  cannot  be  expressed  by  ^::.:s:  ^ba-a ;  see  Amos  9:  8.  Judg.  4 : 
9.  2  Sam.  12 :  14,  al.  The  writer  could  not  say  l-^ba^  (as  Ges. 
intimates  in  Thes.),  in  order  to  designate  without,  for  ^h^  admits 
of  no  suffix.  He  could  not  well  employ  1^^:^*^ ,  because  the  word 
would  then  present  a  sense  doubtful  at  first  view.  It  seems, 
then,  that  *idx  'ibs^  is  the  most  plain  and  specific  of  all.    Indeed, 

v-e  may  come  to  the  meaning  without,  in  another  way.     Lit. 

r^wH  ^\2i-c^  means  froyn  the  lack  of  ivhich,  or  by  reason  of  the  fail- 
ure'of  which,  which  is  =  ivithout  ivhich.  This  fully  vindicates 
the  translation,  and  is  satisfactorily  sustained  by  Zeph.  3 :  6.  Job 
6  :  6.  But  to  what  does  ^d5<  relate  ?  Not  to  n3>  surely,  but  to 
D^rn;  and  to  this  word  some  such  sense  must  of  course  be 
attached,  as  will  make  it  designate  the  organ  or  instrument  em- 
ployed in  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  what  God  has  done.     But 

nearly  all  the  versions  assign  to  it  a  sense  which  defeats  this  end. 
ubs  (or  rather  nhi^)  is  a  frequent  word,  always  bearing  the  sense 


we 


lire 


CiiAP.  III.  11.  147 

of  remote  or  obscure  or  indejinite  time  or  age,  past  or  future,  except 
in  this  place.  Much  controversy  has  been  made  about  the  mean- 
ing here.  The  Sept.  and  Aquila  translate  it  by  aiui' ;  the  Vulg. 
and  some  moderns,  by  mundus ;  Bauer,  Rosenm.,  Midi,  et  al., 
by  eternity;  Ges.,  I)e  Wette,  Knobel,  by  Welfsinn  or  mundorum 
rerum  studium,  uhich  may  mean  a  love  for  or  attachment  to  the 
worlds  or  the  desire  of  searching  out  or  investigating  worldly  things. 
But  in  the  some  300  or  more  examples  of  u\rj  in  the  Ileb.  Scrip- 
tures, not  one  of  them  approaches  such  a  sense  as  world  or  world- 
sense;  and  plainly  it  is  the  mere  offspring  of  a  supjjosed  exigentia 
loci.  What  is  more  still,  it  disagrees  with  the  context,  nbr  must 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  be  something  without  which  men 
cannot  investigate  the  works  of  God,  and  something  therefore 
with  which  they  can  investigate  them.  But  a  Welfsinn  (world- 
sense)  cannot  aid  in  such  an  investigation,  if  we  understand  by  it 
love  of  the  world;  and  as  to  a  desire  of  searching  out  worldly  things, 
even  the  German  word  (  Weltsinn)  cannot  well  have  this  mean- 
ing, and  much  less  can  ob:?  have  it.  But  even  if  it  be  admitted, 
it  would  be  incongruous.  Tlie  searching  after  worldly  things  is 
not  the  way  of  finding  out  the  works  of  God  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end.  Gesenius  (in  Thes.)  renders :  "  God  hath  put  into 
their  heart  the  desire  of  worldly  things,  so  that  man  cannot  find 
out,"  etc.  Here  man  is  represented  as  being  hindered  by  Ids 
Weltsinn  (studium  mundanum),  instead  of  being  aided  hy  it;  and 
the  divine  Being  is  brought  before  us  as  giving  to  man  su/'li  a 
worldliness  of  mind,  as  to  defeat  his  efforts  to  acquire  knowledge ; 
—  a  degrading  view  of  Providence,  which  cannot  well  be  put  to 
the  account  of  Coheleth.  —  To  translate  by  world  simply,  is  liable 
to  the  same  objection ;  for  it  either  has  no  tolerable  sense  in  itself, 
or  else  it  has  one  wholly  inapprojiriate,  viz.  love  of  the  world.  — 
To  translate  by  eternity  is  equally  incongruous,  in  case  we  render 
xb  "irx  '^ba':  by  so  that  not;  for  if  eternity  here  means  (as  it  must 
if  it  liave  any  tolerable  sense)  eternitatis  studium,  then  this  would 
aid  investigation,  instead  of  l)eing  given  to  defeat  it.  If  eternity 
sim})ly  be  meant,  then  no  appropriate  sense  whatever  can  be 
elicited  from  it. 

Another  and  different  rendering  has,  in  view  of  these  difficul- 
ties, been   proposed  by  Gaab,  vSpohn,  and  recently  by  Ilitzig. 


148  Chap.  III.  11. 

This  is  intelligence  or  the  active  faculty  ofhiowing.  To  justify  this 
they  resort  to  the  Arabic  ^-Lfc  =  c^^* ,  meaning  wisdom,  under- 
standing, etc. ;  wliich  is  altogether  appropriate.  In  Ex.  3G :  2,  we 
have  ilibs  M^rn  'rs  in  just  the  same  way,  and  probably  with  the 
same  meaning.  That  the  Ileb.  word,  as  now  written,  was  not 
designed  to  bear  the  usual  sense,  seems  probable  from  the  fonn 
itself.  In  some  210  cases  of  cVii',  eternity,  age,  the  i  is  inserted 
throngliout.  In  14  cases  with  the  article,  only  one  (1  Chron.  16  : 
oQ)  besides  that  before  us,  omits  the  i .  It  is  only  when  an  acces- 
sory syllable  follows,  (as  in  tiip^i?,  i^^i')?  ^^^^  the  "i  is  left  out,  as 
in  1 :  10.  12:5.  In  Ecc.  we  have,  excepting  such  cases  as  those 
and  also  the  one  before  us,  always  the  form  dVis*  ;  see  1:4.  3  : 
14.  9  :  6.  Is  it  not  fair,  then,  to  draw  the  conclusion,  that  in  the 
case  before  us  i  is  designedly  omitted,  in  order  to  advertise  the 
reader  of  a  different  meaning  ?  The  punctators,  indeed,  read  and 
pointed  it  as  =  dbi3> .  But  the  passage  seems  not  to  have  been 
understood  by  them,  and  being  in  doubt  they  followed  the  com- 
mon analogy.  I  hesitate  not  to  prefer  (with  Hitzig)  the  point- 
ing r^h'J ,  as  the  Masorites  are  of  no  binding  authority.  Gesenius 
and  Ileiligst.  disclaim  the  meaning  of  intelligence,  because  such  a 
case  as  this  is  nowhere  else  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
But  where  else  do  they  find  their  admitted  sense  of  w^/.'tdijs  ill 
Ileb.?  It  is  only  in  the  late  Talmud  and  among  the  Rabbins, 
'u^^^tl':'''  can  be  found,  ^^^^f  "course,  one  may  make  the  same 
objection  against  *  flieir  view,  as  they  make  against  ours.  Ges. 
also  says,  that  it  can  in  no  way  be  rendered  probable,  that  -h^-q 
^t^_  ever  means  without.  The  examples  given  above  fully  dis- 
prove this,  and  show  plainly  that  it  sometimes  does  so  mean ; 
and  the  context  shows,  that  c^i' ,  in  the  sense  of  studium  munda- 
man,  is  wliolly  inai>posite.  That  we  may  resort  to  a  kindred 
dialect  to  illustrate  the  meaning  of  a  word,  which  common  Ileb. 
analogy  does  not  explain,  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  and  is  often 
(lone.°  There  are  a  goodly  number  of  words  in  Hebrew  which 
are  best  illustrated  in  this  way.  Here,  the  Arabic  leads  the  way 
to  a  plain  and  fiicile  and  appropriate  sense ;  and  that  is  a  good 
reason  for  admitting  the  appeal  to  it. 

In  further  confirmation  of  this  view,  we  may  refer  to  Sir.  G :  22, 
2:oq)iu  jdo  y.aiu  to  ovofia  avTtjg  Ian,  y.ai  ov  nolloJg  iart  qartna, 


Chap.  ni.  11.  149 

i.  e.  ''  For  wisdom  is  according  to  her  name,  and  is  not  manifest 
to  many."  The  name  then,  here  alhuled  to,  must  of  course  be  a 
name  indicating  some  concealed  or  hidden  thing.  Plainly,  there 
is  an  allusion  here  to  Job  28  :  20,  21,  which  runs  thus  :  "  Whence 
does  wisdom  come  ?  And  where  is  the  place  of  undcrstan<ling  ? 
For  she  is  concealed  fi'oni  the  eyes  of  all  the  living."  Here  the 
word  concealed  is  in  Ileb.  ni:b:;r ,  from  nbr,  to  conceal.  The 
declaration  of  Sirach,  that  according  to  her  name  she  is  not  mani- 
fest =  concealed^  seems  plainly  to  be  built  on  the  verb  n^r ,  as 
here  applied  to  her ;  and  this  of  course  is  the  root  of  C^r .  It 
would  seem  that  Sirach  understood  this  noun,  which  might  be 
literally  rendered  concealment,  to  be  one  of  the  aj)pellations  of 
wisdom.  It  is  a  significant  way  of  indicating,  that  wisdom  is 
something  recondite,  deep,  and  difficult  to  be  discerned.  If  so,  it 
gives  a  Heb.  interpretation  of  cbr  in  his  time,  and  helps  to  illus- 
trate and  confirm  the  one  just  given. 

What,  then,  have  we  as  the  result  of  all  ?  We  have  this : 
'  God  has  made  everything  goodly  or  appropriate  (he^)  in  its 
proper  time ;  and  not  only  so,  but  he  has  given  to  the  mind  of 
man  intelligence,  without  which  no  one  can  scan  the  work  which 
he  has  done  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.'  In  other  words  :  In 
their  proper  season,  all  his  arrangements  arc  fitting  or  goodly, 
and  he  has  enabled  men  to  find  out  this,  by  the  intelligence  be- 
stowed upon  them.  But  chap.  8:17  seems  to  gainsay  this ;  for 
it  denies  that  men  can  seek  and  find  out  the  work  of  God.  But 
there  the  subject-matter  is  difierent.  The  writer  is  treating  of 
the  fact,  that  no  difference  is  made  between  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  in  tliis  life,  and  that  one  and  the  same  destiny  awaits 
all.  This  mystery  is  too  deep  for  him.  tie  declares  that  he 
cannot  Jind  it  out.  But  in  our  text,  it  is  the  jitness  of  things  in 
their  apj^ropriate  season  which  men's  understanding  can  search 
out  and  see.  Yea,  the  whole  course  of  things,  from  beginning  to 
end,  as  it  respects  this  matter,  may  be  understood  by  the  nb? , 
intelligence,  of  man.  K  one  is  not  satisfied  with  this  method  of 
conciliation,  he  may  betake  himself  to  another  mode  of  exjilana- 
tion,  viz.  that  the  writer,  in  3  :  11,  throws  out  an  erroneous  view, 
viz.  that  of  an  objector,  which  is  corrected  in  the  j)i"ogress  of  his 
work,  i.  e.  in  8  :  17.  So  Ilitzig;  but  I  prefer  the  former. 
13* 


150  CHAr.  III.  12—14. 

(12)  I  know  that  there  is  no  good  for  them,  except  to  rejoice  and  to  pro- 
cure happiness  during  their  lives. 

D3,/or  them,  see  remarks  on  G'iNa  in  2  :  24  ;  2  and  h  are  not 
unfrequently  used,  in  the  like  sense,  in  the  later  Hebrew.  The 
plur.  sufF.  refers  to  n^ixii ,  mankir,d,  in  the  preceding  verse,  which 
is  a  noun  of  multitude.  At  the  end  of  the  verse,  in  I'^l^na ,  is  a 
suff.  sing,  referring  to  the  same  noun  in  its  sing.  form.  —  si:: , 
hapjnness  or  enjoyment,  as  usual  in  this  book.  —  ni::  J"'i^'?.^  ?  not 
to  do  good  in  a  moral  sense,  (as  many  construe  it),  but  to  make, 
i.  e.  to  acquire,  ov  procure  happiness  ;  comp.  2  :  24.  3  :  22.  5  :  17. 
8:  15.  9:7,  which  make  this  meaning  clear.  —  Here  the  writer 
recapitulates  the  sentiment  already  expressed  in  2  :  24,  from  which 
he  started  in  this  present  section.  The  next  verse  is,  in  like  man- 
ner, a  repetition  of  2  :  2ih. 

(13)  And  moreover,  as  to  every  man  who  eateth,  and  drinketh.  and  enjoy- 
eth  good  ill  all  his  toil,  the  gift  of  God  is  this. 

In  2  :  24  he  says  :  This  is  from  the  hand  of  God.  —  Js^ri ,  tliis  is. 
—  ninT2 ,  noun  from  )r^  with  5  assimilated,  a  formative  r ,  and  the 
fem.  ending  n  .  So  entirely  dependent  are  we  on  the  divine  Being, 
that  even  the  little  which  we  enjoy,  is  not  secured  by  our  own 
plans  and  efforts,  but  by  God's  own  arrangements.  He  has  consti- 
tuted the  perpetual  circle  and  order  of  all  things.  We  can  neither 
hasten  nor  retard  his  designs.  We  can  neither  add  to  his  work, 
nor  diminish  from  it.  It  remains  ever  the  same.  He  keeps  all 
things  evermore  at  his  own  disposal,  in  order  that,  from  our  de- 
pendence on  him  and  a  sense  of  our  own  weakness,  we  may 
regard  him  with  revy^ence.     So  the  sequel. 

(14)  I  know  that  all  which  God  doeth,  the  same  shall  continue  for  ever; 
to  it  there  is  no  addition,  and  from  it  there  is  no  excision;  and  God  so  doeth, 
that  they  may  fear  before  him. 

It  shall  he  forever,  i.  e.  his  doing  will  always  be  the  same.  No 
one  can  add  to  it  or  abridge  it.  He  is  a  sovereign,  and  "  doeth  all 
things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will."  God  so  doeth,  lit.  has  so 
done  ;  but  as  he  remains  ever  the  same,  so  he  is  still  doing,  and 
will  continue  to  do,  the  same.  —  That  they  [men]  may  fear  before 
him  ;  not  in  order  that,  or  for  the  jmrpose  that,  but  he  is  sovereign 
and  uniform  in  his  doings  in  such  a  way,  that  men  do  and  will  fear 


Chap.  ni.  15.  151 

before  liim,  or  luive  reason  to  fear.  Fear,  in  Ileb.  usage,  when  it 
has  respect  to  God,  implies  what  we  name  reverential  awe.  — 
The  construction  of  "px  here  twice  before  the  Inf.  made  with  b  , 
is  rather  aside  from  the  common  usage.  Usually,  it  stands  before 
nouns,  jironouns,  and  participles  ;  but  sometimes  before  the  Inf. 
gerundial  or  Inf.  nondnascens,  as  in  the  present  case.  The  two  In- 
finitives may  be  regarded  as  virtually  in  the  Gen.  here;  §  113. 

(15)  That  which  is,  was  lonu'  since;  and  that  which  is  to  come,  was  long 
since;   and  God  seckcth  out  that  which  is  past. 

The  first  'n'^'n  here,  although  in  the  form  of  the  Praeter  tense, 
of  necessity  includes  a  present  sense,  (as  the  Praet.  often  does), 
viz.  ivhich  was  and  is.  The  sequel  shows  this  to  be  necessary. 
So,  what  is  and  what  will  be,  happened  long  ago,  see  1 :  9,  10  ; 
in  other  words  :  "  There  is  no  new  thing  under  the  sun."  —  God 
seeketh  out  that  ivhich  is  past,  T'lD ,  Part.  Niph.  of  z"n ,  which 
means,  to  follow  after,  to  chase  atvay.  The  idea  of  the  writer  is, 
that  one  thing  or  occurrence  follows  after  or  upon  another,  and 
expelling  it  (so  to  speak),  occupies  its  place  or  rather  time.  What 
has  thus  been  thrust  away  by  more  recent  events,  God  seeks  out 
again,  i.  e.  he  does  this  in  order  to  renew  and  repeat  it.  Thus  the 
generic  sentiment  of  the  first  two  clauses  is  developed  in  the  last 
clause.  And  this  completes  the  view  which  the  writer  takes  of 
the  fixed,  established,  and  invariable  sequency  of  things  which 
God  has  ordained  in  the  world,  and  so  arrahged  that  no  efforts  or 
toil,  on  the  part  of  man,  can  change  his  ordinances,  or  arrest  the 
course  of  things.  Man  is  thus  impressively  taught  how  dependent 
he  is,  and  of  how  little  avail  it  is  to  repine  and  murmur  at  the  irre- 
sistihle  ivill  of  an  overruling  Providence. 


§  G.    Ohjections  against  the  assertion  thcd  God  lias  made  everything 

goodly. 

Chap.  III.  IG— 22. 

[The  manner  in  which  this  section  commences  ("ll"";),  sliows  lliat  it  stands 
connected  with  the  preceding  one.  An  ohjection  to  a  previous  assertion,  that 
all  is  made  flS"^.  occurs  to  the  writer's  reflection,  viz.  that  wicked  men.  instead 
of  good  ones,  occupy  places  of  judgment.  But  this  he  answers  hy  the  sug- 
gestion, that  such  things  continue  only  for  a  time,  and  are  brought  speedily 
under  inquisition.   Again,  his  mind  suggests  to  him,  that  there  is  one  and  tho 


152  Chap.  ni.  16,  17. 

same  lot  or  destiny  for  man  and  beast.  That  all  die  alike ;  they  return  to  dust 
alike ;  and,  so  far  as  we  can  sec,  we  cannot  discern  whether  the  spirit  of  man 
goes  upward,  or  the  spirit  of  a  beast  downward.  AVhat  else  is  left  for  us,  in  this 
predicament,  but  to  enjoy  what  we  can  of  the  fruits  of  our  toil  ?  These  last 
doubts  or  difliculties,  however,  are  but  partially  solved  here.  The  sngi,festion 
is  made  at  the  outset  (v.  18),  that  the  object  of  such  an  arrangement  is  to  try 
men,  and  see  whether  they  will  act  like  the  brutes,  Avhich,  as  to  their  destiny, 
they  seem  so  much  to  resemble.  The  writer  gives  full  scope  to  the  doubt  or 
difficulty  without  further  answer  here,  than  what  is  implied  in  the  assertion, 
that  all  is  for  the  trial  or  exploration  of  them.  But  he  draws  from  the  state- 
ment thus  made,  the  conclusion  that,  since  the  matter  of  fact  is  thus,  one  must 
do  what  he  has  repeatedly  advised  men  to  do  (2:  24.  3:  12,  13,  22.  5 :  18.  8 : 
15),  viz.  enjoy  the  good  of  his  toil,  and,  at  all  events,  make  sure  of  that.  So 
much,  at  least,  can  be  said  with  propriety,  whether  we  know  or  do  not  know 
what  the  future  will  be.  The  general  view  and  conclusion,  to  which  he  ulti- 
mately comes,  is  not  given  here,  but  towar^J  the  close  of  his  work.  Objections 
(as  here)  are  sometimes  brought  forward,  which  are  not  immediately  and  fully 
answered.    The  sequel  usually  develops  the  answer.] 


(16)  And  further,  I  saw  under  the  sun  the  place  of  judgment,  there  was  in- 
justice 5  even  the  place  of  justice,  there  w^as  injustice. 

"115)1  shows  a  transition  to  another  subject,  and  has  reference  to 
V.  10,  which  commences  with  ^t^'^Sf'i .  —  Not  dip^o  alone  is  the  ob- 
ject of  the  preceding  verb,  but  the  thing  or  fact  described  in  the 
whole  verse,  viz.  the  occupation  of  the  place  of  justice  by  injus- 
tice. loQd'o  means  here  hoihpoiver  of  deciding  and  ohligation  to 
a  just  decision.  The  tribunal  is  occupied  by  S-^D'n ,  lit.  improUty, 
-ivJi'Micp. :  here  the  latter,  because  it  stands  opposed  to  p'lis  ^justice. 
The  article  before  an  abstract  noun  is  a  very  comn^on  usage  in 
Heb.,  §  107.  N.  I.e.  That  the  concrete,  however,  viz.  an  utijust 
judge,  is  here  meant,  is  quite  plain.  The  spectacle  adverted  to  is 
one  to  which  this  book  frequently  adverts,  (4:1.  5:8.  6:7.  8 : 
9, 10)  ;  too  frequently  to  leave  us  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  it 
could  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  when  such  things 
did  not  occur  ;   see  1  K.  10 :  24.  3 :  12.  13  :  28. 

(17)  I  said  in  my  heart,  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  God  will  judge; 
since  a  time  for  everything  and  for  every  work  he  hath  appointed. 

God  will  judge,  i.  e.  he  will  pass  sentence  on  each  man  accord- 
ing to  his  deserts.  He  will  do  so,  because  he  has  appointed  a 
time  when  every  deed  and  work  will  be  judged.  In  most  of  the 
versions,  dd  is  regarded  as  an  adverb,  which  some  translate  there^ 


Chap.  III.  17.  153 

and  iome  t/ien.  That  Dr,a3  an  adverb,  may  designate  either 
time  or  place,  is  familiar  to  every  reader  of  Hebrew.  But  if  it 
mean  t/iere,  then  a  diflicuUy  is  easily  raised,  by  asking :  tvltere  ? 
No  place  has  been  adverted  to,  in  the  context.  If  we  render  it 
then,  we  naturally  inquire,  of  course,  ivhen  ?  No  time  has  yet 
been  mentioned,  to  which  t/ien  can  refer.  Besides,  if  the?e  be  the 
meaning,  =•::  should  be  placed  earlier  in  the  clause  ;  see  in  Ps. 
36  :  13.  53  :  G,  for  a  different  position.  There  are  other  difficul- 
ties, moreover,  which  are  serious  ones.  r:^  time  —  time  for 
what  ?  Not  a  time  appropriate  for  the  doing  of  any  or  every 
action,  as  in  v.  1  ;  for  this  would  be  merely  a  repetition  of  v.  1. 
Besides,  that  there  is  such  a  time,  would  not  help  to  prove  that 
God  will  judge  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  Nor  can  time 
here  mean  a  limited  time  beyond  which  the  wicked  will  not  be 
tolerated  ;  for  then  it  must  apply  to  the  righteous  as  well  as  the 
wicked.  Such  a  meaning  cannot  ever  be  urged  upon  yt.r~'bzh  n^ , 
for  this  means,  ojjporlunit}/  to  do  this  thing  or  that,  and  not  a  brief 
space,  beyond  which  doing  cannot  extend.  ^Ye  must  seek,  then,  for 
some  other  meaning.  This  is  easily  found.  Houbigant,  Doderl., 
Van  der  Palm,  and  Hitzig,  point  the  last  word  cb  (not  c"j), 
which  means  to  appoint,  constitute.  The  version  which  this 
would  require,  is  given  above.  The  course  of  thought,  then,  runs 
thus  :  '  God  will  judge  all  men,  for  he  has  appointed  a  time  [of 
judgment]  for  everything  which  they  do.'  This  gets  rid  of  all 
the  doubt  about  the  where  or  the  when.  The  only  difficulty  that 
remains  is,  whether  b  and  hv  can  well  mark  the  same  relations. 
But  this  too  is  easily  removed.  Ges.  (in  Lex.  b>,  4.  c.)  says: 
"  Non  raro  ponitur  pro  b  et  bj? ,"  as  in  Esth.  3  :  9.  Job  33  :  23. 
22  :  2.  G  :  27.  19  :  5.  30  :  2.  33  ':  27.  38  :  10,  al.  Of  course,  then, 
we  need  to  say  no  more  here,  than  that  hv  is  employed  merely 
in  the  way  of  varying  the  diction.  —  But  in  this  way  of  construing 
the  clause,  it  follows  that  the  verb  ob  is  rather  unusually  sepa- 
rated from  its  object  n:^  Yet  cases  of  the  like  kind  are  not  very 
rare.  Time,  i.  e.  a  judgment-time,  is  made  emphatic  by  standing 
first.  The  greater  concinnity  of  the  meaning  thus  elicited,  must 
be  quite  evident  to  all. 

But  when  is  tliis  TrJ  =  opportune  time  to  come  ?     Is  it  in  tliis  world,  or  in 
the  next?     Hear  Knobel :  "  The  last  judgment  one  jnust  not  here  think  of. 


154  Chap.  III.  17. 

but  hold  fast  to  the  idea  in  general  of  a  retribution  some  time  or  other  to  be 
made,"  i.  e.  in  the  present  world.  Of  the  sameojtinion  is  Hitzig,  Heiligstedt, 
Dc  Wette,  Ges.,  and  many  others.  But  they  extend  the  same  rule  of  exe- 
gesis to  all  the  passages  in  the  0.  Test,  which  speak  of  a  divine  judgment 
respecting  the  doings  of  men.  Hciligs.  has  appealed  to  more  than  20  pas- 
sages, all  which  (and  many  more  besides),  as  he  says,  refer  only  to  the  pres- 
ent life.  Tlicrefore,  (such  is  liis  reasoning),  Coljeleth  knew  nothing  of  a 
flit  are  judgment.  One  might  object  that  this  is  a  uon  sequitur  here  ;  but  still, 
it  could  hardly  be  made  probable,  unless  the  language  is  very  cogent,  that 
the  author  knew  so  much  more  than  all  his  fellow  Hebrews.  That  there  are 
things  in  this  1)ook,  which,  if  taken  as  the  established  opinion  of  Cohelcth, 
would  show  that  he  doubted  or  denied  a  future  existence,  cannot  well  be 
gainsayed.  So  vs.  18 — 20  below,  where  he  seems  to  doubt,  or  ignore  any 
knowledge  of,  the  spirit  of  man  after  death,  viz.  whether  it  goes  upward,  or 
not.  In  9 :  5  he  says,  that  '•  the  dead  know  nothing,  and  have  no  reward." 
In  9 :  6  he  says  :  "  There  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom, 
in  tlie  grave,  whither  thou  goest."  Certainly,  these  things  cannot  be  fairly 
disposed  of  by  any  one,  who  maintains  that  the  writer  gives  everywliere  his 
settled  opinion,  instead  of  communicating  sometimes  the  doubts  he  had  expe- 
rienced in  a  course  of  philosophical  inquiry.  They  are  forced,  in  this  way^ 
to  admit  contradictions  in  the  book,  by  their  mode  of  exegesis ;  and  if  not, 
then  they  have  to  put  the  author's  words  on  the  rack,  to  make  them  confess 
what  they  themselves  wish.  On  the  other  hand,  admitting  the  expression  of 
such  doubts  and  objections,  the  question  remains :  Has  the  writer  developed 
anywhere  his  ultimate  and  settled  opinion  1  In  regard  to  the  point  now 
before  us  —  the  judgment  of  men's  actions  —  it  seems  to  me  quite  clear  that 
he  has.  I  bring  out  this  conclusion  by  means  of  several  things,  which  lie 
on  the  face  of  his  book. 

(1)  The  present  life  presents  no  important  distinction  between  the  right- 
eous and  the  wicked  as  to  their  condition  and  destiny.  The  wise  and  the 
foolisii  have  ihe  same  experience  of  the  evils  of  life,  2  :  14,  15.  Even  that 
which  befalleth  the  beasts,  bcfalletli  all  men  in  common,  3:  18 — 21.  The 
oppressed  have  no  comforter ;  the  dead,  yea  the  unborn,  are  in  a  more  desir- 
able condition  than  the  living,  4:  1 — 3.  Wliat  hath  the  wise  man  more  than 
the  fool  ?  6:8.  The  just  perish  in  their  righteousness,  and  the  wicked  pro- 
long life  in  tlieir  wickedness,  7:  1.5.  There  are  just  men  to  whom  it  happen- 
eth  according  to  the  work  of  the  wicked,  and  there  are  wicked  men  to  whom 
it  happeneth  according  to  the  work  of  the  righteous,  8:14.  All  things  come 
alike  to  all ;  there  is  one  event  to  the  righteous  and  to  the  wicked,  to  the 
clean  and  to  the  unclean,  9:  2,  No  man  knowcth  either  love  or  hatred  by 
all  that  is  before  him,  9:1.  Time  and  chance  happen  to  all,  9  :  II.  —  Thus 
we  have,  according  to  the  simple  tenor  of  these  words,  complete  doubt,  or 
rather  direct  denial,  of  any  distinctions  in  the  present  life  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.  If  now  we  take  these  declarations  as  evidence  of 
Colieleth's  settled  0])inion,  it  is  idle  to  talk  of  reward  and  punishment  as 
applicable  to  men  in  this  world.     On  the  other  hand,  if  we  regard  all  decla- 


Chap.  III.  17.  155 

rations  of  this  kind  as  indicative  merely  of  a  doubfinf;  state  of  mind,  or  as 
related  simply  to  those  misfortunes  and  sntterin«;s  of  all  men,  which  are  in 
common  while  they  are  in  their  temporal  condition,  neither  of  these  })Osition3 
wilj  <,^o  to  disprove  a  future  judgment.  At  all  events,  it  is  in  sober  earnest 
that  Coheleth  maintains  the  lot  of  all  men,  without  distinction,  to  be  one  of 
misery  and  death.  In  this  respect,  all  arc  alike,  for  there  is  no  distinction. 
But, 

(2)  lie  still  holds  fast  the  idea,  that  there  is  a  rrlrihttlion  to  the  n<^hti:o\i3 
and  the  wicked. 

(iod  is  to  be  feared,  3 :  14.  His  worshippers  are  to  avoid  olTendinir  him, 
by  the  most  scrupulous  attention  to  their  religious  duties,  lest  he  should  be 
angry,  5:  1 — 7,  He  that  feareth  God,  shall  come  forth  out  of  all  harm,  7: 
18.  God  made  man  upright,  but  they  have  sought  out  many  evil  inven- 
tions (7 :  29),  and  consequently  deserve  chastisement.  Wickedness  shall  not 
deliver  those  who  are  given  to  it,  8:8.  It  shall  be  well  with  tliem  that  fear 
God,  . .  .  but  it  shall  not  be  well  with  the  wicked,  8:  12,  13.  Eemember  thy 
Creator  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  12 :  1,  (with  the  im[)lication  of  reward  for 
so  doing).  Fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments,  12:  13,  (with  the  same 
implication). 

Here  then,  in  Nos.  1.  2.  arc  diverse  and  o/)])osite  sentiments  —  opposite,  \n 
case  we  maintain  that  there  is  no  retribution  beyond  the  present  life  in  Cohe- 
leth's  view:  as  ncological  critics  mostly  do,  and  some  others.  Let  us  now  see 
where  we  are.  First,  there  is  no  distinction  in  the  present  life,  as  to  the  con- 
dition of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  ;  "  all  things  come  alike  to  all."  Sec- 
ondly, "  it  shall  be  icell  with  them  that  fear  God ;  it  shall  not  be  irell  with  the 
wicked."  —  When?  Not  in  this  world,  according  to  the  preceding  view, 
for,  according  to  that, "  all  things  come  alike  to  all."  If,  then,  the  second  class 
of  texts  be  true,  (and  why  should  we  call  this  in  question  ?)  it  must  be  that  a 
future  retribution  awaits  men.     We  come  now  to  our  text  again. 

(3)  There  is,  then,  a  time  for  judgment,  according  to  this  text,  when  dis- 
tinctions will  be  made,  and  retribution  will  follow.  There  is  *  One  higher 
than  the  highest,"  who  will  punish  oppressors,  5 :  8,  and  vindicate  the  op- 
pressed, who  "had  no  comforter"  here,  4:1.  He  that  feareth  God  shall  be 
delivered,  7  :  26.  The  young  may  rejoice  in  their  blessings,  and  live  cheer- 
fullv;  but  they  are  to  remember  always,  that  "for  all  these  things  God  will 
bring  them  into  judgment,"  11:9.  "  God  will  bring  to  judgment  every  work, 
with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil,"  12:  14. 
This  last  passage  forces  even  Knobel   to  acknowledge  its  reference  to  a 

future  judgment.  He  assigns  two  reasons;  the  first,  that  everi/tla'/if/  is  to  be 
brought  into  judgment :  the  second,  that  even  cveri/  secret  tliimj  is  to  be  judged. 
This  formula,  as  he  well  remarks,  is  always  applied  to  a  jiuhpnent  after 
dtath;  see  Rom.  2:  16.  1  Cor.  4:  .'3.  1  Tim.. 5:  24,  25.  He  then  goes  on  to 
say  :  "  Neit  ter  of  these  two  expressions  could  be  expected,  if  the  writer  were 
speaking  merely  of  the  natural  conscciuenccs  of  human  actions  as  a  retribu- 
tion:" see  Knob,  in  loc.  This  is  ingenuous;  but  what  next?  Knob,  says, 
that  "such  being  plainly  the  sentiment  of  12:  14,  it  could  not  possibly  have 


156  Chap.  III.  17. 

been  written  by  Coheleth,  and  must  have  another  author."  In  like  manner, 
Dodcrlein,  Schmidt,  Bcrtholdt,  Unihreit,  etc  Of  all  these  assaiUmts  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  passa<^e,  HeiUgstedt  well  says:  Authentiam  anjumentis 
injirniissiinis  et  inanibus  hnpiKjuurant. 

I  see  no  way  of  consistency,  then,  but  that  of  sui)posing  a  futare  judgment 
and  retribulion.  The  motives  to  i)iety,  without  this,  are  inert  and  powerless. 
If  you  say,  that  the  prospect  of  a  judgment  during  the  present  life,  is  suf- 
ficient, we  may  well  ask  how  that  can  be,  when  Coheleth  tells  us,  that"  there 
be  wicked  men  to  whom  it  hai)])cncth  according  to  the  work  of  the  righteous," 
(8:  14) ;  and  that  "  all  things  come  alike  to  all,"  9:2?  What  retrilmtion  is 
there  in  all  this  ?  All  exhortations  to  ''  fear  God,  and  keep  his  command- 
ments," are  fruitless  on  any  other  ground  than  that  of  a  judgment  after  death. 
Retribution  is  the  very  soul  of  all.  "  He  that  cometh  unto  God,  must  believe 
that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  the  rewanler  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him," 
Heb.  11:  6. 

And  when  we  are  told  so  often  and  so  confidently,  that  the  ancient  He- 
brews had  no  idea  of  a  future  state  and  a  future  judgment,  and  therefore 
Coheleth  could  have  no  reference  to  either ;  we  must  crave  the  liberty  of 
hesitating  before  we  receive  this.  What  did  the  Hebrews  think  had  become 
of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  after  their  translation  1  What  is  the  meaning  of  being 
gaihertd  to  one's  fathers  ?  Gen.  49  :  29.  Judg  2:  10.  Ges.  says:  "  It  is  spoken 
of  the  entrance  into  Orcus,  where  the  Hebrews  supposed  their  ancestors  to 
be  assembled."  (Lex.  pjDX  ,  Niph.)  Then  what  means :  ''  In  thy  presence  is 
fulness  of  joy  ;  at  thy  right  hand  are  pleasures  for  ever  more?"  Ps.  16:  11. 
What  shall  we  say  of  Ps.  17  :  15.  "  I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake  in  thy 
likeness  ?  "  And  Daniel,  not  improbably  a  contemporary  of  the  real  Cohe- 
leth—  what  means  he,  when  he  tells  us,  that '"  many  of  them  that  sleep  in 
the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame 
and  everlasting  contempt  ?  "  Here  is  not  only  futurittj^  but  a  resurrtdion  of 
the  body  itself.  Isaiah,  too,  has  added  his  testimony:  "  Thy  dead  men  shall 
livA.j  with  my  dead  body  shall  they  arise.  Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in 
dust  [i.  e.  ye  dead] ;  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall 
cast  out  [hrim/ forth,  in  the  Heb.]  the  dead,"  26  :  19.  Beautiful  imagery  this  ; 
in  which  the  grave  is  represented,  like  the  grass  on  which  dew  falls,  as  fruc- 
tiferous, and  bringing  forth  its  dead  as  the  fruit.  This  is  now  generally 
admitted  to  refer  to  the  resurrection.  And  when  the  Saviour  says,  respect- 
ing the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  that ''  he  is  not  the  God  of  the 
dead,  but  of  the  living,'"  does  not  he  supj^ose  the  Jews,  with  whom  he  was 
reasoning,  to  believe  in  a  future  state  ?  All  this,  and  more  Avhich  might  be 
easily  adduced  from  the  O.  Test.,  makes  me  hesitate  to  receive  the  neologi 
cal  doctrine  in  respect  to  the  sul)ject  before  us.  Hoav  can  any  man  reasona 
bly  suppose,  that  the  Hebrews,  with  Moses,  and  Samuel,  and  David,  and 
Solomon,  and  Isaiah,  and  other  highly  distinguished  men  to  teach  them, 
and  above  all  if  we  believe  them  (as  I  do)  to  have  been  ins}>ired — that  the 
Jewish  nation,  after  all,  knew  less  than  the  Egyptian  and  other  heathen 
nations  around  them,  about  a  future  state  of  existence  ?     The  idea  is  all  but 


Chap.  III.  18.  157 

preposterous  in  my  view.  Still,  I  would  not  claim  for  Coheleth  more  tlian 
his  book  will  justify.  Those  who  find  f/ospel-clearmss  in  the  O.  Test.,  on 
such  sulijicts,  seem  to  forj^ct  that  Paul  has  assigned  to  Uie  gospel  of  Christ 
the  high  ])rorogative  of  ''  bringing  life  and  immortality  to  light."  It  has 
brought  out  into  noonday  splendor,  what  before  was  seen  only  in  the 
twilight. 

A  more  inconsistent  man  tlian  Coheleth  it  would  be  difficult  to  find,  put- 
ting all  his  views  side  by  side,  provided  he  has  abjured  aW  futurili/,  and  vet 
insists  on  retribution  to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  while  he  at  the  same 
time  has  again  and  again  declared,  that  "  all  things  [in  this  world]  come  alike 
to  all,"  and  that  "no  man  knoweth  either  love  or  hatred  from  all  that  is  here 
before  him."  But  when  we  view  him  in  the  light  of  proposing  the  doubts 
and  difficulties  which  perplexed  his  own  mind  ;  and  sooner  or  later  as  solring 
them  ;  then  we  meet  with  no  very  serious  embarrassment  in  the  plain  and 
straight-forward  grammatico-historical  interpretation  of  the  book.] 

(18)  I  said  in  my  heart,  on  account  of  the  sons  of  men,  in  order  that  God 
might  search  them,  and  that  they  might  see  for  themselves  that  they  are 
beasts. 

Ofi  account  of  the  sons  of  men  —  what  is  it  which  has  beeu 
done,  or  is  to  be  clone,  on  their  account  ?  This  verse  is  coordinate 
with  V.  17,  both  beginning  in  the  same  way,  and  both  equally- 
having  relation  to  v.  16.  There  we  have  the  declaration,  that 
injustice  occupies  the  tribunal  oi justice.  Tliis  is  suffered  or  per- 
mitted, partly  in  order  that  men  might  be  brought  to  see  how 
brutish  their  conduct  often  is.  God  searches  them  by  such  a 
dispensation,  and  makes  them  conscious,  in  this  manner,  how 
wickedly  they  can  demean  tliemselves.  —  c'^^b ,  Inf.  of  *i  jS ,  with 
pref.  h  and  suff.  C- .  The  Inf.  ending  with  "i  takes  Pattah,  like 
verbs  b  Gutt.;  and  the  usual  form  of  Ayin  doubled,  whicli  takes  a 
Dagh.  forte  when  any  accession  or  suffix  is  received,  is  super- 
seded here,  because  a  Dagh.  in  the  "i  is  inadmissible,  §  ^Q.  3.  Of 
course,  the  Pattah  goes  into  Qamets,  §  22.  2.  C-  is  the  usual 
Suffi,  here  in  the  Ace.  after  "i2.  The  verb  *Tn3  =  ^^12  in  0  :  1, 
and  moans  here  to  explore,  to  search;  see  Lex.  The  subject  of 
the  Inf  verb  (n'^nbxrn)  follows  the  verb  as  usual,  the  Ace.  pro- 
noun suif.  being  inserted  between  them,  which  also  is  the  usual 
practice.  The  b  before  the  verb  designates  purpose  or  design. 
Sentiment :  '  It  is  for  their  sakes,  or  on  their  own  account,  tliat 
God  sifts  or  explores  them.'  Why  ?  That  they  might  see,  etc. 
Here,  as  D"iri?jt  is  not  repeated  after  nix'^b ,  so  as  to  designate  a 
subject  for  the  Inf.  verb,  we  must  supply  one  from  the  context. 

M 


158  Chap.  III.  19,  20. 

This  gives  us  sons  of  men.  It  is  that  7nen  (not  God)  mai/  see  how 
brutish  they  are,  in  placing  and  continuing  injustice  on  the  tribu- 
nal of  justice.  They  are  thus  made  to  perceive  for  themselves,  that 
they  are  leasts.  —  12J  instead  of  '6  =  ^^"X ,  is  perhaps  shortened 
because  of  the  Maqqeph  that  follows ;  once,  however,  -q  occurs  in 
2:  22,  without  Maqqeph,  but  with  variations,  as  some  Mss.  have 
la. —  ID^T}  are,  simply  a  copula,  §  119.  2.  —  nnb  gives  intensity  to 
the  expression  of  the  subject  that  they  themselves  might  see,  or 
that  they  might  see  for  themselves,  §  119.  3. 

The  writer  next  proceeds  to  give  a  reason,  why  he  has  be- 
stowed on  mankind  the  degrading  appellation  of  beasts.  He 
points  out  the  resemblance  between  them  and  the  beasts. 

(19)  For  as  to  the  destiny  of  men  and  the  destiny  of  beasts  —  there  is  even 
one  destiny  for  them ;  as  dieth  this,  so  dieth  that ;  there  is  one  breath  to  all ; 
and  excellence  of  man  over  beast  there  is  not;  for  all  is  vanity. 

As  to  sentiment,  comp.  9  :  2,  3.  2 :  14, 15.  Ps.  49: 13,  21.  In  the 
first  clause  ii'lp'? ,  as  now  pointed,  is  Nom.  absolute.  In  irnpTcsi , 
the  ^  is  climactic,  §  152.  Vav,  B.  2.  The  copula,  as  usual,  is 
omitted  in  all  three  clauses,  §  141.  —  ni'a  may  be  Inf.  nominascens, 
or  a  noun  in  the  const,  state  before  nt ,  lit.  as  is  the  death  of  this, 
so  is  the  death  of  that.  That  r\^l  means  vital  breath  here  is  plain  ; 
for  this  breath  belongs  in  common  to  both,  and  is  designated  in 
each  case  by  ri^^ ;  comp.  Gen.  2:7.  6:17.  7  :  15,  22,  where  the 
idea  is  fully  expressed  by  &"i'^n  nn.  Sometimes  the  word  desig- 
nates anima,  also  animus  and  intellectus  ;  see  Lex.  —  bbb ,  with 
the  article,  because  of  universality.  —  No  excellence  of  man  over 
beast,  i.  e.  none  in  regard  to  the  thing  which  he  has  in  view.  One 
and  the  same  destiny,  viz.  suffering  and  death,  equally  awaits  all. 
—  l-jx  is  not,  its  subject  is  ^ni^a.  All  are  to  be  placed  alike  under 
the  general  category  of  vanity.  —  The  writer  next  proceeds  to 
confirm  v.  18  by  other  facts. 

(20)  All  go  to  one  place;  all  sprang  from  the  dust,  and  all  return  to  the 
dust. 

Tir^r^  =  iysvsTo,  originated,  came  into  existence  —  ST^  ,  3  Praet. 
of  •2.^•<^,  and  not  Part.,  comp.  rrr^  in  the  preceding  clause.  —  "ifirrt , 
article  before  the  name  of  a  well-known  substance,  §  107.  3. 
N.  1.  ^».     For  the  vowel  (Seghol),  see  Lex.  n,  Not.  2.  c.     Beasts 


Chap.  III.  21.  159 

are  from  the  dust,  Gen.  2:10.  1 :  24  ;  and  so  is  man,  Gen.  2  :  7. 
3:  19.  Both  return  to  dust,  Ps.  104 :  29.  14G:  4.  — Thus  far 
the  bodies  only  of  each  party  are  compared ;  for  of  these  only  is 
the  assertion  true,  liut  what  of  the  n^rn ,  the  animatiuff  breath  of 
life  .^  This  is  not  material  or  corporeal.    Whither,  then,  does  it  go  ? 

(21 )  "Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  the  sons  of  men,  whether  it  asceneleth  up- 
ward, and  the  sjnrit  of  beasts,  whether  it  dcscendeth  downwards  to  the  earth? 

l-ibi-ri,  the  n  is  rendered  as  the  article-pronoun  (§  107.  1)  in  our 
version,  viz.  that  =  which.  But  all  the  old  versions  make  it  the 
interrogative  h,  viz.  Sept.,  Vulg.,  Syr.,  Arab.,  Chald.,  and  so  Luther 
and  others,  with  nearly  all  recent  critics.  Even  the  present  point- 
ing does  not  decide  against  this,  for  n  interrog.  not  unfrequently 
takes  a  Dagh.  after  it,  like  the  article,  e.  g.  in  Job  23  :  G.  Lev.  10 : 
19.  Is.  27  :  7.  Ezek.  18  :  29,  al.  Here,  as  the  Dagh.  is  suppressed, 
because  of  the  Guttural,  the  short  vowel  becomes  long,  as  in 
case  of  the  article.  So  also  in  r"i-ii^ri ,  where  the  Dagh.  is  in- 
serted, as  stated  above.  Besides  n  pronoun  does  not  couple  with 
X^^rj  which  here  follows.  It  must  be  ndx ,  in  such  a  case.  More- 
over, who  knoweth  ?  implies  the  indirect  interrogative  whether  after 
it,  i.  e.  who  knoweth  whether  it  is  so,  or  so  ?  The  doubt  which  is 
suggested  here  about  the  spirit  of  man  is  not  answered,  for  the  pres- 
ent, but  is  fully  answ^ered  in  12 :  7,  where  we  are  told,  that  "the 
spirit  returns  to  God  who  gave  it."  Comp.  Job  33  :  28  —  30.  34 : 
14.  Ps.  104  :  29.  As  to  the  spirit  of  beasts,  the  question  is  not  one 
of  the  same  interest.  No  answer  to  it,  therefore,  is  anywhere  given. 
It  would  seem  that  the  common  impression  about  the  entire  extinc- 
tion of  beasts  at  their  death,  is  tacitly  admitted  to  be  true.  The 
fc^'^n ,  in  both  cases,  answers  the  purpose  of  the  substantive  verb 
in  forming  the  participles  so  as  to  make  them  into  verbs,  §  119. 
2.  §  131.  2.  c.  It  is  fem.,  because  nn  is  usually  so.  —  r^:i'z  prob- 
ably from   13^  depression,  with  fi-    parag ""^^^    makes  the 

meaning  still  more  express  and  emphatic. 

That  an  opinion  was  entertained  by  some  around  him,  when 
Coheleth  wrote  his  book,  that  the  spi7-it  of  man  goes  upwards, 
i.  e.  returns  to  God  (12  :  7),  is  clear  from  his  putting  the  ques- 
tion. The  idea  was  not  new  to  him.  But  here,  in  his  doubting 
and  desponding  mood,  he  makes  it  a  question  by  asking :  Who 
knoweth  ?     That  is,  he  here  intimates  that  this  matter  is  doubt- 


160  Chap.  III.  22. 

ful.  It  is  to  his  purpose  here  to  leave  it  so ;  for  this  brings  man 
and  beast  into  a  closer  resemblance,  and  his  present  concern  is  to 
make  out  this.  The  whole  passage  (vs.  18 — 21)  shows,  that 
when  the  writer  penned  it,  he  was  in  that  perplexed  state  of 
mind  which  is  so  often  developed  in  the  book,  before  we  come 
near  to  the  close  of  it.  There  the  mist  begins  to  dissipate,  and 
he  sees  many  things  in  a  truer  and  more  cheering  light  than 
before.  Hesitation  and  skepticism  are  overcome,  and  his  manful 
struggle  to  obtain  light  and  truth  becomes  triumphant.  But, 
taking  things  as  they  now  appear  to  him,  he  comes  once  more  to 
the  former  conclusion,  viz. 

(22)  Then  I  saw  tliat  there  is  no  good  other  than  tliat  a  man  rejoice  in 
his  doings,  since  this  is  his  portion;  for  who  shall  bring  him  to  look  upon 
that  which  shall  be  after  him. 

The  same  sentiment  above,  in  3  :  12,  13.  2:  24  —  l^b?.^  his 
doings,  not  merely  toil  or  labour,  but  all  his  actions  and  efforts. 
Let  each  one  take  all  the  enjoyment  which  his  efforts  can  secure. 
Rational  and  moderate  enjoyment,  not  Epicureanism,  is  doubt- 
less to  be  understood  here  ;  see  2  :  9,  3.  —  For  suff.  ^s-  in  ^iX'^:^'? , 
see  Par.  of  Suff.  p.  289.  —  n  nxn  means,  to  look  intently  upon,  i.  e. 
with  interest  or  pleasure.  Sentiment :  '  Seize  on  the  present, 
and  enjoy  what  you  safely  and  reasonably  (iroans)  can ;  for  the 
future  no  one  can  disclose  with  any  certainty.'  In  other  words  : 
'  Make  the  best  of  what  is  now  at  your  command,  and  trust  not 
to  the  uncertainties  of  the  future.'  Confining  our  view  merely  to 
the  world  of  sense,  this  advice  is  beyond  all  doubt  correct  and 
proper.  Every  being  instinctively  desires  enjoyment ;  and  Cohe- 
leth  would  have  him  secure  what  he  can  derive  from  his  efforts, 
but  to  enjoy  it  with  moderation  and  caution.  Such  advice  is  far 
enough,  indeed,  from  any  monkish  asceticism.  Coheleth,  for  the 
present,  is  looking  only  at  this  mutable  and  transitory  world,  and 
inquiring  what  good  it  can  afford  which  is  worth  striving  for.  — 
He  comes  repeatedly  to  the  conclusion,  that  all  is  mutable,  evan- 
escent, unsatisfactory,  and  not  to  be  depended  on,  since  we  have 
no  control  over  it.  To  satisfy  our  innocent  natural  appetites, 
and  supply  our  wants,  is  all  to  which  we  can  attain  in  the  present 
world.  This  he  urges  all  to  do,  in  order,  as  it  2)lainly  seems, 
that  they  may  be  more  contented  and  happy  and  cheerful.    But 


Remarks  on  HE.  21.  161 

it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  cite  from  this  book  passages  in 
order  to  encourage  men  to  become  Epicureans,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  be  gloomy  and  discontented  Fatjiiists.  Coheleth  was 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 

In  my  remarks  al)ove,  on  v.  1 7,  I  have  stated  tlie  views  of  most  of  the 
recent  German  commentators,  respecting  the  opinions  of  Cohelctli  as  they 
regard  a  future  state.  The  doubt  expressed  about  the  final  destiny  of  n^i-i , 
in  V.  21,  they  are  well  satisfied  to  accept  as  evidence  of  his  skeptical  views 
concerning  the  future.  But  12:  7  stands  somewhat  in  their  way.  "The 
nn  returns  to  God  who  gave  it."  The  explanation  which  they  give  of  this 
is,  that '  God  takes  back  the  breath  of  life  {ryr\)  which  he  originally  gave.' 
Hitzig  asserts  that  the  writer,  in  12:  7,  has  declared  this  to  be  true  of  the 
nsil  of  both  man  and  beast.  If  so,  however,  it  does  not  lie  in  the  words  of 
12  :  7,  for  there  the  nn  of  man  only  is  spoken  of.  But  Ps.  104  :  29  seems 
adapted  to  sustain  his  position.  The  Psalmist  is  speaking  of  all  the  animals, 
great  and  small.  He  says  respecting  them  :  "  Thou  takest  away  their  nn , 
and  they  expire,"  i.  e.  breathe  out  their  vital  breath,  'j^S'l^^ .  In  Job  34  :  14, 
15,  occurs  the  like  expression  respecting  man:  "  He  [God]  taketh  to  himself 
his  spirit  (in^I'n)  and  his  breath ;  all  flesh  perisheth  together,  and  man  return- 
eth  to  dust."  In  33 :  30,  this  is  expressed  by  iL"£5  2^L^n^ ,  to  take  back  his 
soul  or  life.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  m'l  may  be  and  is  employed  to  designate 
vital  breath,  both  of  man  and  animals,  and  that  the  taking  aicaij  of  this  brings 
on  natural  death.  But  when,  as  in  12:  7,  it  is  said  of  the  tyTi  itself,  that  it 
returns  (n'lirn)  to  God  who  gave  it  (Gen.  2:  7),  it  is  doubtless  the  same 
n^in,  of  which  (Gen.  6:  3)  it  is  said:  It  shall  not  always  be  humiliated  (','l'T' 

from  "i*^  =  Arab.  Jj!  J  'o  humble)  in  man;  i.  e.  God  will  speedily  recall  it, 
or  take  it  back,  since  it  is  so  degraded.  It  is  said  to  return  to  God,  in  our  text. 
But  how  did  the  Hebrew  conceive  of  such  a  return  ?  Was  it  a  reabsorption 
into  the  source  whence  it  came,  and  was  the  breath  of  life  regarded  as  some- 
thing material,  e.  g.  like  to  our  atmosphere  ?  I  know  not  how  we  can  an- 
swer this  question  with  entire  confidence;  for  a  minute  knowledge  of  Heb. 
speculative  philosophy,  with  respect  to  such  a  point,  we  do  not  possess.  Yet 
Job  4  :  15,  16,  gives  us  an  important  hint :  "  Then  a  sjn'rit  passed  before  my 
face;  the  hair  of  my  flesh  stood  up.  It  stood  still,  but  I  could  not  discern 
the  form  thereof;  an  image  was  before  mine  eyes  ;  silence,  and  then  a  A-oice," 
etc.  In  other  words,  a  shadowy  undefined  something  was  before  him,  visible 
as  distinguished  from  other  things,  and  yet  not  defined  in  the  detail.  Here, 
then,  is  a  n^l'n  diverse  from  vital  breath.  It  seems,  in  the  speaker's  view 
(Eliphaz),  to  be  the  visible  symbol  or  representative  form  of  something  which 
was  immaterial  in  man,  viz.  the  breath  of  life.  This  then,  as  it  would  seem, 
does  not  dissolve  and  perish  like  the  body,  and  with  it.'  It  goes  back  to  God, 
14* 


162  Remarks  on  III.  21. 

who  gives  to  it  this  subtile  and  unsubstantial  form.  With  this  agree  the 
words  of  Jesus  (Luke  24:  39):  "  A  spirit  {nvevfia  =  'n^^)  hath  not  flesh 
and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."  The  two  passages  let  us  into  the  porch  of  Jew- 
ish pneumatology ;  but  do  not  lead  us  into  the  adijtum  of  the  building.  What 
returns  to  God,  what  he  takes  awaij  (^l&x),  seems  not  to  be  absorbed  in  him, 
but  to  take  to  itself  as  it  were  a  shadowy  form,  capable  of  motion  and  devel- 
opment. Nor  does  this  stand  in  opposition  to  Ecc.  9:  10,  which  declares 
that  "  in  Shcol,  there  is  neither  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom." 
The  meaning  of  this  is,  that  the  dead  cannot  perform  the  functions  of  the 
living  ;  but  irdoes  not  decide,  that  there  is  no  future  existence,  no  surviving 
of  aliuman  being  in  any  sense,  in  and  by  something  which  belongs  to  man. 
There  may  be  a  n^^  ,  like  that  described  by  Eliphaz  and  by  Christ,  and  yet 
all  the  actions  of  the  common  physical  man  be  unsuitable  to  be  ascribed  to 
it.  Nor  can  we  appeal  with  confidence  to  Is.  14:  9,  10,  where  the  t^.SS'l 
(umbrae)  in  Sheol  are  represented  as  in  commotion,  to  meet  the  approaching 
ghost  of  the  Babylonish  monarch  and  deride  him ;  for  this  picture  has  its 
basis  merely  in  the  popular  views  respecting  bii^^ ,  like  those  among  us 
about  ghosts.  Hitzig,  on  Ecc.  12:  7,  says  that  Coheleth  represents  the  n^l 
"  as  a  particle  of  the  divine  breath,  or  world-soul,  which,  at  decease,  is  reab- 
sorbed." With  all  due  deference,  I  would  suggest,  that  a  world-soul  belongs 
to  Greeks  and  Komans,  but  not  to  the  Hebrews.  God,  a  personal  God,  infi- 
nitely above  all  matter,  separate  from  it,  and  independent  of  it,  is  an  unvary- 
ing doctrine  of  the  Hebrew  theology.  "  God  is  a  spirit,"  is  a  declaration  of 
Je'sus  (John  4 :  24) ;  but  evidently  a  declaration  which  develops  only  the  com- 
mon Jewish  sentiment. 

The  question  then  :  What  becomes  of  the  niTl  physiologically  which  ascends 
upioard  — which  returns  to  God  who  gave  it?  is  one  on  which  no  portion  of 
the  0.  Test,  Scriptures  directly  passes  sentence.  It  must  be  made  out  from 
inference,  if  made  out  at  all.  An  incorporeal  being  Eliphaz  saw ;  one  that  hath 
neither  flesh  nor  bones,  Jesus  decides  a  spirit  to  be.  But  beyond  this,  who 
can  with  certainty  affirm  ?  The  ^vord  n^^ ,  means  breath  of  the  mouth  or 
nostrils ;  then  breath  of  the  air,  i.  e.  wind  ;  then  breath  of  life  =  "trSS ,  (No.  2 
Lex.),  and  ipvxv,  or  anima;  then  the  seat  of  sensations,  affections,  and  emotions; 
then  the  love  or  temper  of  these,  and  specially  the  will  and  purpose  of  the  soul ; 
and  lastly,  intellect,  intelligence.  For  the  last  we  have  a  notable  passage  in 
Job  32  :  8  :  "  There  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty 
hath  given  him  understanding:'  The  two  clauses  are  parallelisms,  and  of  the 
like  meaning.  See  also  Job  32  :  18.  Is.  29 :  24.  40  :  13.  Ps.  139  :  7.  Yet 
none  of  all  these  meanings  compare  with  our  Enghsh  word  soul  in  the  higher 
sense,  viz.  a  spiritual  incorporeal  being,  having  a  separate  and  personal  exist- 
ence. Has  the  O.  Test,  disclosed  such  an  idea,  except  it  be  obtained  by 
implication  ?  That  the  later  Hebrews  believed  in  something  of  this  nature, 
is  clear  from  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  and  from  the  words  of 
our  Saviour  to  the  thief  on  the  cross  :  "  This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in 
Paradise,"  Luke  23  :  43 ;  which  is  confirmed  by  Heb.  12 :  23.     Eev.  5  :  8—13; 


Remarks  on  III.  21.  1G3 

6:9,  10,  al.  So  too  angels  are  spirits,  and  demons  are  spirits.  But  there  is 
nothing  so  express  as  this  in  the  O.  Test.  When  the  divine  Being  is  called 
"  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,"  (Numb.  16:  22.  27:  16),  the  meaning 
is  simply,  that  he  is  supreme  over  all  men  that  live  or  have  vital  breath;  comp. 
Job.  12:10.     Is.  57:16. 

"We  must  give  up,  then,  the  idea  of  finding  exactly  tlie  jmetnuatohf/y  which 
is  taught  by  our  philosophical  systems,  in  the  0.  Test.  An  incorporeal  per- 
sonal being  after  death,  wc  cannot  find  expressly  and  definitely  in  the  Jewish 
Scriptures;  i.  e.  this  is  not  formally  and  directly  developed  there.  But  is  it 
not  a  matter  of  fair  inference  from  what  is  there  said  ?  At  the  close  of 
Cohelctb,  when  the  writer  brings  old  age  to  view,  and  death  as  its  proximate 
sequel,  he  announces  the  latter  by  saying,  tlien  "  shall  the  spirit  return  to 
God  who  gave  it."  But  what  says  he  a  moment  after  this  1  "  For  God 
will  bring  to  judgment  every  work,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be 
good,  or  whether  it  be  evil  ?"  But  how  shall  the  spirit  which  has  returned  to 
God  be  judged,  if  it  be  absorbed  in  him  as  the  aniina  mundi  (Hitzig),  or  as  a 
part  of  his  subtile  impalpable  essence?  How  can  it  be  judged,  without  any 
personality,  or  any  identity  of  being  with  the  former  man  ?  IIow  can  it  have 
"  fulness  of  joy  in  God's  presence,"  (Ps.  16;  11),  or  be  "  satisfied,  when  it 
awakes  in  his  likeness"  (Ps.  17:  15),  w^ithout  personal  it  tj  and  real  existence 
of  its  own  ?  In  Dan.  12:2,  and  Is.  26 :  19,  a  resurrection  of  the  body  is  taught ; 
so  that  we  cannot  appropriately  appeal  to  those  texts,  as  to  the  point  now 
before  us.  But  the  other  passages  just  quoted,  and  Ecc.  3:17.  11:9,  view- 
ed in  the  light  which  they  afford,  seem  to  lead  us  to  the  conclusion,  that 
while  h^'n  ,  in  far  the  greater  number  of  cases,  means  breath,  breath  of  life, 
the  seat  of  affections  and  emotions,  and  understanding  or  intelligence,  the  use  of 
it  in  some  cases,  like  that  of  Ecc.  12:7,  imports  a  surviving  of  the  germ  or 
source  of  those  affections  and  of  that  intelligence.  That  the  Hebrew  pneuma- 
tology  was  well  defined  as  to  this  point,  that  ancient  metaphysics  made  it  out 
as  plainly  and  fully  as  ours  under  the  teachings  of  the  gospel,  no  considerate 
man  will  assert,  who  has  well  studied  the  subject.  The  judgment,  the  reward, 
the  retribution,  still  were  realities  in  the  view  of  the  HcbrcAvs.  At  least,  this 
seems  to  be  plain  in  the  way  of  inference.  And  although  Cohcleth  here 
appears  to  doubt  this  (3 :  21),  he  plainly  quits  all  his  doubts  in  12  :  7.  and 
speaks  decidedly. 


§  7.  Difficulties  in  respect  to  enjoyment.     Toil  and  disapjiointment 
consequent  on  plans  to  he  rich  or  powerful. 

Chap.  IV.  1—16. 

[The  writer  has  just  been  urging  the  present  enjoyment  of  one's  labors  an.d 
efforts.  Difficulties  that  lie  in  the  way  of  this,  now  seem  to  start  up  and  pre- 
sent themselves.  Oppression  is  rife,  and  even  carried  so  far  as  to  make  life 
disgusting.  All  one's  efforts  arc  frustrated  by  it,  so  that  the  pursuit  of  good, 
in  this  way,  turns  out  to  be  vanity,  vs.  1 — 6.    One  sets  out  to  accumulate 


164  Chap.  IV.  1,  2. 

much  wealth ;  he  even  lives  a  solitary  life  in  order  to  avoid  expense ;  yet  this 
lonely  condition  is  attended  with  inconvenience  and  harm,  vs.  7 — 12.  One 
born  poor  is  presented  as  striving  to^obtain  even  a  throne ;  he  succeeds,  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  old  king;  but  at  last  his  own  disappointment  and  disgrace 
follow,vs.  13— 16.] 

(1)  Then  I  turned  and  saw  all  the  oppressions  which  are  done  under  the 
sun;  and  behold!  the  tears  of  the  oppressed,  and  they  had  no  comforter; 
and  from  the  hand  of  their  oppressors  was  violence,  but  to  them  no  comforter. 

The  wound  of  oppression,  disclosed  in  3:  16,  dwelt  so  on  the 
mind  of  the  writer,  and  was  so  aggravated  by  his  own  experience, 
that  it  breaks  out  afresh  here,  and  he  suggests  the  subject  as 
practically  connected  with  the  preceding  advice  about  enjoyment. 
This,  he  thinks,  is  impossible,  while  things  remain  as  they  are. 
—  ti^ibsJi ,  committed,  perpetrated.  —  inSJia^ ,  const,  sing,  being  a 
collective  noun.  We  must  render  it  by  the  plural,  because  our 
idiom  does  not  employ  the  sing,  in  such  a  case.  —  The  second 
d'lpiDSJ  is  Part.  pass.  —  nb ,  power  in  malam  partem,  i.  e.  force, 
violence.  The  three  participles  here  well  designate  the  continued 
action  which  the  case  presents. 

(2)  Then  I  praised  the  dead,  those  who  long  since  died,  more  than  those 
who  are  living  unto  the  present  time. 

'r3.p_  most  critics  regard  as  a  Part,  with  5a  dropped ;  which 
sometimes  occurs,  perhaps,  in  Part.  Piel,  Zeph.  1: 14.  Knobel 
has  cited  four  examples  in  proof  of  this  usage,  every  one  of  which 
belongs  to  Pual,  and  not  to  Piel.  Hitzig  denies  such  a  usage  in 
Piel ;  and  Ges.  has  noted  none  in  his  Grammar.  Hitzig  says,  that 
we  must  make  it  in  the  Inf.  absolute,  which  may  follow  a  definite 
verb,  and  continue  the  Construction  as  though  it  were  a  definite 
mode,  1  Chron.  5  :  20.  In  like  manner,  on  the  other  hand,  the  def. 
mode  may  follow  the  Inf.  abs.  in  the  same  construction,  Job  40 : 2. 
Gen.  17  :  10.  But  in  1  Chron.  5  :  20,  the  Inf.  abs.  is  not  followed 
(as  in  our  text)  by  a  Nom.  or  subject  of  the  verb,  which  seems  to 
make  a  difference.  The  "^3 it,  in  our  text,  seemingly  requires  a 
Part.,  or  else  the  def.  verb  "^riri?^  must  be  implied.  Yet  cases 
of  the  Nom.  or  subject  in  the  third  person,  may  be  found  in  Job 
40  :  2.  Ezek.  1: 14,  (see  §  128.  4.  n.  1),  joined  with  the  Inf.  abs. 
We  may,  therefore,  accept  this  solution.  As  to  making  an  adjec- 
tive of  na^lJ ,  as  some  have  done,  the  meaning  of  the  word  puts 


Chap.  IV.  3.  1G5 

thisoutof  question. —  W^  declined  with  the  Tseri  of  the  ground- 
form,  n?3 .  —  G^lin  adj.  from  ^n .  —  n5sn  are^  §  119.  2.  —  ^T^'i,t 
compound  particle  from  Hin-"ir ,  unto  here,  either  as  to  place  or 
time.     The  n-  is  local  and  paragogic,  the  root  being  '{r\ . 

(3)  And  better  than  botli  of  them  is  he  who  hath  not  hitherto  come  into 
existence,  who  hath  not  seen  the  evil  deeds  which  are  done  under  the  sun. 

trt^ri-'a ,  lit.  than  the  two  of  them,  the  dual  Nom.  is  D^i'j .  — 
idx  rx ,  Ace.  governed  by  n^iJ  implied,  and  to  be  deduced  from 
the  preceding  verse.  Some  make  it  the  Nom.,  for  n5<  is  some- 
times found  before  the  Nom.  (see  Lex.  nx ,  2.  a.)  ;  but  this  is 
unnecessary.  Still,  I  have  made  the  translation  as  if  it  were  in 
the  Nom. ;  for  literally  rendered  as  Ace,  it  would  run  thus :  And 
as  better  than  both  of  them  [I  praised]  him  who,  etc.  The  version 
above  is  more  facile.  —  'j'lr ,  apoc.  form,  without  the  parag.  T\- . 
—  n^fi  is  a  real  Perf.  here,  and  should  be  rendered :  has  not  been  ; 
and  so  of  nx'n .  —  r'nn  adj.  here,  final  Qamets  made  by  the  pause- 
accent,  from  H"^  .  See  a  different  construction  in  'J"^  )^^^_  (1: 13), 
where  5>'n  is  a  noun  in  the  Genitive. 

The  pressure  of  the  times  must  have  been  grievous  to  call  forth 
such  a  sentiment  as  this.  We  cannot  imagine  anything  like  to  this 
in  the  days  of  Solomon.  The  connection  of  vs.  1 — 3  with  what 
immediately  precedes,  is  such  as  serves  to  show,  that  the  advice 
given  in  3  :  22  could  not  be  followed,  at  the  time  then  present,  so 
as  to  secure  the  enjoyment  in  question ;  and  as  this  was  the 
writer's  last  hope  respecting  earthly  things,  and  this  hope  was 
now  frustrated  by  oppression,  Coheleth  despairs  of  life,  and 
wishes  rather  for  death.  He  pushes  the  matter  even  to  the  highest 
extreme.  '  It  would  be  better,'  he  says, '  never  to  have  been  born, 
than  to  come  into  life,  and  undergo  such  vexations  and  disappoint- 
ments.' But  we  are  ready  to  ask :  How  could  a  man,  who  had  a 
good  hope  respecting  a  future  state,  give  utterance  to  such  a  senti- 
ment ?  It  seems  paradoxical,  at  first  view ;  and  yet  Job  often 
expresses  the  same  feelings,  and  Jonah  (4:8),  from  mere  vexa- 
tion about  his  credit  as  a  prophet,  earnestly  felt  and  expressed 
the  like  wishes.  Paul,  too,  had  "  a  desire  to  depart,"  and  be  freed 
from  his  sorrows  ;  but  he  expected  to  be  with  Christ,  "  which  was 
far  better"  than  any  earthly  good.  There  is  nothing  strange,  then, 
in  the  feeling  of  Coheleth.   But  it  must  have  been  indulged,  when 


166  Chap.  IV.  3. 

he  was  in  darkness  and  doubt  about  the  ways  of  Providence,  and 
also  under  the  lash  of  the  oppressor.  "What  he  says  here  is  surely 
no  pattern  for  us.  He  only  tells  us,  ingenuously,  how  he  felt  and 
acted,  under  the  gloomy  state  of  his  fretted  mind.  Thousands, 
every  day,  now  sympathize  with  him.  The  only  mystery  about 
the  matter  is,  that  he  does  not  here  say  one  word  about  a,  future 
world ;  for  a  lively  hope  of  happiness  there  ought,  full  surely,  to 
make  him  patient  and  submissive.  But  alas  !  as  he  has  told  us  : 
"  There  is  not  a  just  man  on  earth,  that  doeth  good,  and  sinneth 
not."  Job,  with  all  his  patience,  in  a  moment  of  exasperation, 
"  cursed  the  day  of  his  birth,"  3  : 1  seq.  Moses  wished  rather  to  be 
"  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  God,"  i.  e.  to  be  erased  from  the  cata- 
logue of  the  living,  than  that  the  request  which  he  made  should  be 
refused,  Ex.  32 :  32.  Elijah,  when  hotly  persecuted  by  Jezebel, 
wished  heartily  to  die,  1  K.  19  :  4.  Jonah  was  doubtless  a  good 
man ;  but  when  under  disappointment,  he  gave  expression  to  the 
wishes  already  noted  above,  Jon.  4:3.  If  we  allow  Coheleth 
the  same  latitude  which  sacred  history  shows  us  was  tolerated 
in  others,  we  cannot  be  at  all  surprised  at  his  impatience  ; 
especially  if  we  regard  his  views  of  the  future,  at  that  time,  as 
somewhat  unsettled  and  vacillating.  It  is  only  when  we  insist, 
that  he  must  at  all  times  utter  Christian  sentiment,  that  we  are 
perplexed  about  his  views  and  feelings.  Allow  him  the  freedom 
that  is  conceded  to  Paul,  when  he  introduces  an  objector  to  his 
views ;  and  then  suppose  the  objections  of  the  author,  in  the 
present  case,  to  have  come  from  his  own  struggling  mind,  and 
that  he  has  told  us,  ingenuously,  how  he  then  felt  and  acted,  and 
all  is  plain  and  easy.  We  need  no  Procrustes's  bed  for  the  text. 
We  are  not  bound  either  to  approve  of,  or  to  follow,  Coheleth's 
conclusions,  when  he  was  in  his  perplexed  and  unsettled  state, 
but  rather  to  take  warning  from  them,  and  seek  to  avoid  them. 
Any  other  ground,  for  the  exegesis  of  this  book,  puts  many  parts 
of  it  on  the  rack,  and  even  then  we  cannot  make  it  intelligibly 
confess  what  we  desire.  Very  different  from  all  this  is  the  close 
of  the  book,  where  he  develops  the  ultimatum  to  which  his  mind 
comes.  Christians  have  a  spontaneous  feeling,  that  such  a  state  of 
despair  is  wrong  ;  and  yet,  under  the  full  blaze  of  gospel-light, 
and  all  its  revelations  of  the  future,  more  or  less  of  them  indulge, 
at  times,  the  like  feelings  with  those  of  Coheleth.     More  pardon- 


Chap.  IV.  4.  167 

able  and  less  strange  were  they  in  him,  because,  at  the  best,  he 
could  only  see  by  twilight.  The  full  strength  of  Christian  senti- 
ment we  see  in  Paul  and  Peter,  and  others  of  similar  hopes.  "All 
things  shall  work  together  for  good,"  sustained  them  in  their  most 
dark  and  dismal  hours.  Coheleth  comes,  at  last,  to  the  same  con- 
clusion ;  but  the  process  in  him  was  slower,  and  attended  with 
more  difficulty,  than  in  their  minds.  —  Thus  much  for  the  dark 
cloud  which  oppression  threw  over  him.  Will  the  amassing  of 
wealth  serve  to  heal  the  wound  ?     We  shall  soon  see. 

(4)  Then  I  considered  all  toil  and  dexterity  of  doinsjj,  that  it  becomes  mat- 
ter of  jealousy  toward  a  man  on  the  part  of  his  neighbor  ;  this  too  is  vanity 
and  fruitless  effort. 

When  one  strives  to  outdo  his  neighbor  in  his  efforts  to  be  rich, 
he  often  becomes  an  object  of  that  neighbor's  jealousy  or  envy ; 
and  this  is  a  passion  so  bitter,  that  all  pursuits  which  excite  it 
.  become  worthless  by  reason  of  it.  Most  render  'i"i^'3  here  emolu- 
ment, 'profit.  But  in  2:21  it  has  the  sense  assigned  to  it  in  the 
version  above,  and  so  it  should  have  the  same  sense  here,  because 
the  connection  and  sentiment  are  alike  in  both  passages.  Indeed, 
dexterity  is  more  enviable  than  wealth.  —  "^3  stands  connected  with 
'ip'^j};'! ,  /  saw  .  .  .  that,  etc.  ;  it  is  not  causal.  —  5<"in  is  fem., 
and  is  usual  when  the  neuter  (id)  is  required.  It  means,  it  is,  or 
it  becomes.  But  what  is  the  it,  which  is  matter  of  jealousy  ? 
The  answer  is,  both  the  toil  and  the  dexterity.  These  are  included 
under  s<"'ri  =  that  thing.  —  rxDp ,  most  explain  by  object  of 
jealousy ;  for  toil  and  dexterity  are  not,  themselves,  jealousy. 
Hitzig,  however,  insists  on  Beneiden,  the  envying  (active),  not  the 
being  envied.  In  this  case,  we  must  give  to  J<"ri  the  sense  of  it 
occasions  —  a  possible,  but  not  very  facile  meaning.  —  ^•i?'^^  ^"^J?: , 
if  we  adopt  Hitzig's  view,  is  more  readily  explained,  "{O  often 
standing  before  the  author  or  cause  of  anything  ;  and  so  Ave  may 
translate  :  of  envying  by  his  neighbor.  The  sense  is  good ;  but  the 
other  mode  of  interpretation  makes  it  equally  so.  a  would  then 
mean  from  or  on  the  part  of,  designating  the  source  of  envy  or 
jealousy ;  a  meaning  not  unfrequent  of  this  particle.  (See  Lex.  A. 
2.  c.  For  the  suff.  ^in-  to  the  noun,  see  §  89.  §  91.  9).  If  such  be 
the  consequences  of  dexterous  toil  to  grow  rich,  it  may  well  be 
said :  All  is  vanity  and  an  empty  pursuit.     That,  such  is  often  the 


168  Chap.  IV.  5,  6. 

case,  every  day  bears  testimony.  But  to  the  author's  view  some 
one  may  object,  (in  the  words  of  an  old  proverb),  that  still  none 
hut  fools  are  inactive  and  lazy.     So  the  next  verse  :  — 

(5)  The  fool  foldeth  his  Imnds,  and  consumeth  his  own  flesh. 

To  fold  the  hands,  is  to  assume  the  position  of  one  unemployed 
and  idle.  —  A7id  consumeth  his  oion  flesh,  not  —  sucks  his  own  fat, 
and  lives  on  it,  like  the  bear  —  but  destroys  himself  In  other 
words,  through  idleness  he  lacks  the  means  of  healthful  nutriment, 
and  his  body  pines  away  under  its  deprivations.  He  is  felo  de  se  ; 
comp.  Ps.  27  :  2.  Mic.  3  :  3.  Is.  49  :  26.  Num.  12:12.  Such,  then, 
are  the  consequences  of  laziness ;  and  if  so,  how,  it  is  asked,  can 
dexterous  toil  be  vanity,  which  supplies  the  wants  of  the  body  ? 
Such  seems  to  be  the  objection  made  to  the  preceding  view  of 
Coheleth  ;  and  by  the  activity  which  he  mentions,  it  is  implied 
that  some  serious  advantage  is  gained  which  the  foolish  idler 
must  forego.  Idleness  is  its  own  punishment ;  therefore  activity, 
which  makes  provision  for  want,  is  not  altogether  vanity,  as  Cohe- 
leth had  called  it.  Such  is  the  logic  of  the  objector.  To  this,  an 
answer  is  made  forthwith :  — 

(6)  Better  is  a  handful  of  quiet,  than  two  hands  full  of  toil  and  fruitless 
effort. 

The  reply  does  not  commend  the  course  of  the  idle  or  foolish 
man  ;  how  could  it  ?  But  it  decides,  that  quietude  in  life,  with  a 
modicum,  is  better  than  to  have  a  double  portion,  or  both  hands  full, 
which  turns  out,  after  all,  to  be  but  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 
In  other  words :  It  is  better  to  be  contented  with  what  can  be 
obtained  in  a  quiet  way,  and  without  bustle  and  strenuous  effort, 
than  to  toil  incessantly  in  order  to  get  both  hands  full,  i.  e.  an 
overflowing  abundance.  Coheleth  would  choose,  for  himself, 
neither  the  extreme  of  the  bustling  covetous  man,  nor  yet  that  of 
the  idle  man  whose  inaction  must  bring  him  to  want.  In  medio 
iutissimus.  Strive  for  a  sufficiency,  and  be  content  with  that ; 
for  this  can  be  procured  consistently  with  quiet.  Therefore, 
neither  overdo,  nor  be  idle.  Both  are  vain  and  fruitless  in  their 
issue.  —  5<b^  is  Inf.  nominas.  followed  (as  often)  by  a  Genitive. 
mm,  in  the  Ace.  governed  by  i^b^a ,  §  135.  3.  h.  Qamets  on  the 
penult  here,  on  account  of  the  pause.    ts'i^iEH ,  used  only  in  the  dual, 


Chap.  IV.  7—9.  1G9 

lit.  both  jists  or  clenched  hands,  referring  to  the  grasping  of  an 
object  with  both  hands  in  order  to  hold  it.  —  h-QV ,  etc.,  both 
nouns  in  Ace.  by  reason  of  xb^  ,  as  above.  The  folly  of  a  greedy 
pursuit  of  M'ealth  is  still  further  illustrated  by  the  sequel. 

(7)  And  I  turned  and  considered  a  vanity  under  the  sun.  (8)  There  is 
one  man,  and  no  second ;  moreover  lie  lias  no  son,  nor  brother ;  and  yet 
there  is  no  end  to  all  his  toil,  his  eyes  also  are  not  satisfied  with  riches:  'For 
whom  then  [saith  lie]  do  I  toil,  and  deprive  myself  of  enjoyment  ?'  This  too 
is  vanity,  a  sad  undertaking  is  it. 

The  discourse  is  climactic.  Beginning  with  the  vanity  of 
excess  in  toil  in  order  to  acquire,  it  goes  on  here  to  illustrate  the 
extreme  folly  to  which  this  jiassion  will  lead.  The  writer 
begins,  in  v.  7,  by  calling  it  a  vanity,  he  ends  (v.  8)  by  calling  it 
a  sore  evil. 

And  not  a  second,  is  exegetical  of  the  emphatic  meaning  of  inx , 
viz.  one  only.  — -pi^ ,  being  in  the  Const,  state,  it  implies  after  it  one 
or  each  of  the  two  preceding  nouns.  —  T^i^iy  takes  a  sing.  fern,  verb 
after  it,  being  the  plur.  of  things  and  not  oi persons,  §  143.  3  ;  see 
1  Sam.  4:  15.  Ps.  37 :  21.  Jer.  2 :  15.  There  is  no  need  of  the 
Qeri  ir  J? .  —  'nirr,  Ace.  §  135.  3.  h.  — And  from  whom^  etc.,  i.  e.  the 
miser  is  introduced  as  exclaiming  thus,  n^oj?  being  omitted,  as 
often  in  other  cases.  The  statement  is  rendered  more  vivid  and 
striking  by  this.  —  "'"rss  I  have  rendered  myself,  to  which  it  is 
often  equivalent.  —  S?"!  "{'^'i'J ,  the  first  is  in  the  Const,  state,  and 
lit.  we  must  render :  an  undertaldng  of  sadness  or  misfortune.  — 
fi<'^ri  is  it,  as  usual,  fem.  for  neut.,  and  it  means  the  whole  business 
or  the  whole  affair  in  question. 

Having  adverted  emphatically  to  the  loneliness  of  the  miser, 
he  pursues  this  view  of  the  subject  further,  and  describes  the 
evils  that  result  from  such  an  insulated  position. 

(9)  Two  are  better  than  one,  because  they  have  a  good  reward  on  account 
of  their  toil. 

Heiligst.  says,  that  'n^rx  does  not  mean  quia  here,  but  is  to  be 
referred  as  a  relative  j^ronoun  to  the  preceding  c^sd  .  But  the 
verse  then  would  run  thus :  Better  are  two  than  one,  to  which 
[two]  there  is  a  reward,  etc.  But  this  would  defeat  the  speaker's 
object,  for  it  would  limit  better  only  to  such  two  as  might 
have  a  reward.  The  assertion  is  more  general.  —  ^^x ,  because, 
15 


170  Chap.  IV.  10-12. 

is  a  very  common  use  of  the  word,  see  Lex.  B.  3.  What  the 
reward  in  question  is,  he  now  goes  on  to  illustrate  by  some  par- 
ticulars. 

(10)  For  if  they  fall,  the  one  shall  raise  up  his  fellow,  but  woe  to  him  — 
the  one  who  shall  fall  —  should  there  then  be  no  second  to  raise  him  up. 

If  they  fall,  that  is,  either  one  or  the  other  ;  but  not  both  at 
the  same  time,  for  then  no  helper  is  left.  —  '\'h>'^i<  is  two  w^ords 
compounded,  viz.  i^  'ij* ,  woe  to  him.  ^'^^^^  being  in  apposition 
with  the  pron.  in  i^ ,  by  implication  the  h  prefix  is  carried  on 
mentally,  so  as  to  stand  before  it.  Falling  need  not  be  confined 
merely  to  stumbling  physically,  but  may  be  extended  to  any  case 
where  2i  friend  in  time  of  need  is  a  good. 

(11)  Moreover,  if  two  lie  together,  then  they  have  warmth;  but  to  one 
alone,  how  shall  there  be  warmth  1 

The  nights  in  Palestine,  when  the  cold  is  nearly  approaching 
to  frost,  become  to  the  feelings  severely  cold,  by  reason  of  the 
warmth  at  mid-day.  It  would  seem,  from  Ex.  22 :  26,  that  a 
man's  cloak  or  outer  garment  was  all  the  covering  usually  pro- 
vided for  sleeping.  The  point  aimed  at  in  the  text  becomes,  in 
this  view,  quite  conspicuous.  With  us,  provided  as  we  are  with 
abundance  of  covering,  the  allegation  of  the  verse  seems  com- 
paratively tame.  But  the  Hebrews  slept  on  a  floor-mat  at  the  best, 
and  not  on  feather-beds  ;  and  they  had  few  if  any  blankets,  made 
for  the  purpose  of  procuring  warmth  by  night.  Many  refer  the 
text  to  conjugal  union  in  sleeping;  but  the  sentiment  is  more 
general,  and  the  writer  is  not  discussing  the  subject  of  matri- 
mony. The  object  is  merely  to  illustrate  the  sentiment  he 
designs  to  confirm,  by  examples  taken  from  the  common  occur- 
rences of  life.  —  nni,  lit.  then  is  it  warm,  for  )  the?!,  see  §  152. 
B.  d.  —  dn;^ ,  Imperf.  with  A.  of  dTon  ,  Qamets  by  reason  of  the 
pause  ;  see  §  66.  Note  3,  also  5,  e.  g. 

(12)  And  if  one  prevails  over  him  who  is  alone,  two  shall  stand  firm  be- 
fore him  ;  and  a  threefold  cord  is  not  hastily  broken. 

The  verb  ti*pri';i  is  here  impersonal,  and  therefore  requires  the 
indefinite  one,  any  man^  before  it.  —  '^nsn  is  exegetical  of  the 
preceding  suff.  i  —  used  anticipatively,  and  means  the  lonely  one, 
—  Stand  firm  before  him  is  used  to  express  successful  resistance  ; 


Chap.  IV.  13,  14.  171 

see  2  K.  10:  4.  Josh.  10:  8.  —  ij^nrt,  designating  a  particular 
substance,  it  takes  the  article.  —  iii^'^;J"2tn ,  trebled,  Part  Pual  of  the 
denom.  verb.  —  ir^npn ,  wWi  haste,  used  adverbially.  That  is, 
if  it  be, an  advantage  that  two  should  combine,  still  more  may  be 
expected  from  the  addition  of  a  third.  The  last  clause  was 
doubtless  a  common  proverb. 

Thus  much  for  the  advantages  of  society  or  union.  The  lonely 
miser  fails  of  securing  these.  His  wealth,  gotten  by  the  relin- 
(luishment  of  the  assistance  and  consolation  which  he  often  needs, 
is  indeed  but  vanity. 

But  how  fares  it  w4th  the  amhitious  man  ?  Do  the  honours 
which  he  covets,  and  which  he  successfully  strives  to  win,  render 
him  secure,  and  stable,  and  renowned  ?     We  shall  soon  see. 

(13)  Better  is  a  youth  indigent  and  sagacious,  than  a  king  old  and  foolish, 
who  cares  not  to  be  any  more  admonished. 

BDln ,  sagacious,  cunning,  the  secondary  and  low^er  sense  of  the 
word. — "'ii^ ,  not  only  novit,  scivit,  but  also  to  care  for,  to  have  regard 
for ;  see  Lex.  No.  7.  —  All  sorts  of  kings,  from  Nimrod  down  to 
Rehoboam  and  even  to  Joash,  have  been  conjectured  here, in  order 
to  make  out  the  old  king  mentioned.  It  is  not  absolutely  neces- 
sary, indeed,  to  make  out  any  other  than  merely  a  case  supposed 
by  way  of  illustration.  If,  however,  any  suppose  that  Solomon 
should  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  the  book,  is  it  not  very 
improbable  that  he  w^ould  characterize  himself  as  old  and  foolish  ? 
But  a  later  writer,  who  read  such  an  account  of  Solomon  as  is 
given  in  1  K.  11:  1 — 13,  might  well  deem  him  to  be  old  and 
foolish,  and  disinclined  to  hear  wholesome  admonition.  It  was 
not  enough  to  have  700  wives  and  300  concubines,  many  of 
them  heathen,  but  Solomon  built  heathen  temples  in  the  face  of 
the  temple  of  God,  and  worshipped  in  them,  1  K.  11:  5.  The 
young  sagacious  man  seems  not  improbably  to  be  Jeroboam  ;  as 
we  shall  see  in  the  sequel.  —  h  sn^ ,  lit.  cares  not  in  respect  to. 
The  ni:: ,  at  the  beginning,  does  not  mean  better  in  a  moral  sense, 
but  more  fortunate, 

(14)  For  from  tlie  house  of  fugitives  he  goes  forth  to  reign;  for  in  his 
own  kingdom  he  was  born  a  poor  man. 

d^^i^ort ,  as  appears  by  the  r\  (article  with  Qamets)  was  doubt- 


172  Chap.  IV.  15. 

less  understood  by  the  punctators  as  put  for  d'l'nii&yiri ,  the  impris- 
oned. Hence  our  version  out  of  prison ;  and  so,  most  of  the 
critics  have  translated.  That  6<  is  sometimes  dropped  in  such 
cases,  is  clear,  from  2  Chron.  22 :  5,  comp.  w'ith  2  K.  8 ;  28.  Is. 
13 :  20.  But  if  ^ox  is  the  stem  of  the  word,  we  might  expect 
ti^TP^,  here,  as  in  Judg.  16:  21,  25  (Kethibh),  and  Gen.  39  :  20 
(Qeri).  On  the  other  hand,  no  change  in  the  text  is  really- 
needed ;  for  nil'i^D  gives  an  apposite  sense;  see  in  Jer.  17:  13. 
2  :  21,  where  it  means  departed  from.  The  general  sense  of  'i^D 
is  to  turn  away,  recede,  either  to  avoid  danger,  or  to  seek  a  place 
of  safety.  Fugitives  is  our  nearest  word ;  for  men  become  so,  in 
order  to  avoid  danger,  or  to  find  safety.  If  now  Jeroboam  be 
the  cmining  youth  in  question,  the  language  applies  fitly.  He 
fled  to  Egypt  for  safety,  1  K.  11:  40.  Moreover,  Egypt  was 
the  common  asylum  of  fugitives  from  Judea,  Jer.  26 :  21.  24  :  8  ; 
and  in  later  times,  Joseph  with  Mary  and  the  child  Jesus  went 
thither,  Matt.  2 :  13 — 22.  From  Egypt  did  Jeroboam  come  to 
reign  over  ten  tribes  in  Israel.  He  was  born  in  Judea,  and  his 
mother,  at  the  time  of  his  flight,  was  a  widow,  1  K.  11:  26.  As 
he  was  a  servant  of  Solomon,  he  was  probably  poor ;  but  his 
sagacity  soon  gave  him  the  place  of  an  officer  under  him.  When 
he  "  lifted  up  his  hand  "  against  the  old  king,  Solomon  sought  to 
kill  him,  and  he  fled  to  Egypt,  the  house  or  asylum  of  refugees, 
1  K.  11:  26,  40.  —  The  second  'iS  is  causal  here,  stating  a  ground 
or  reason  of  his  flight.  In  the  kingdom  over  which  he  afterwards 
reigned,  he  w^as  born  poor,  and  so  had  not  the  means,  at  first,  of 
exciting  and  carrying  out  a  revolt.  On  this  ground  he  became  a 
fugitive,  until  opportunity  of  returning  with  a  prospect  of  success 
occurred.  On  his  return,  the  people,  disgusted  by  the  new  king 
and  his  exactions,  hailed  Jeroboam  with  joy.     So  the  sequel. 

(15)  I  saw  Jill  the  living,  who  walked  beneath  the  sun,  with  the  youth,  the 
second,  who  stood  up  in  his  room. 

Living,  i.  e.  living  men,  those  who  lived  at  that  period.  All 
the  living,  is  hyperbole  in  form ;  but  every  reader  feels  at  once, 
that  it  is  merely  a  strong  expression  of  the  idea  of  great  num- 
bers, yet  still  such  as  belonged  to  Palestine,  and  not  all  the  living 
of  the  whole  human  race.  See  the  like  in  Matt.  3:5.  —  Walked 
under  the  sun,  moved  hither  and  thither  on  the  earth.  —  d5?  ivith, 


Chap.  IV.  16.  UV, 

in  the  usual  sense  of  association.  Ileiligs.  takes  fiS"  in  the  sense 
of  comparison  —  the  living  compared  with  the  youth,  etc.  But 
what  sense  can  be  made  of  this,' I  do  not  see.  Clearly  the  mean- 
ing is,  that  he  saw  the  populace  thronging  around  the  youth, 
who  was  to  be  second,  i.  e.  to  be  successor  to  the  old  king,  instead 
of  his  own  son,  who  retained  only  two  tribes.  —  The  article  in 
"ib^rt  makes  it  plain,  that  the  'ib';]  of  v.  13  is  referred  to  here.  — 
So  ■'3"i•^^ ,  in  apposition  and  explicative,  also  takes  the  article. 
The  second  king  may  mean  the  next  which  follows  the  old  one, 
or  comes  after  him  in  the  throne ;  but  a  somewhat  different 
sense  will  be  adverted  to  in  the  sequel,  v.  1 6.  To  stand  up,  is  to 
stand  firm,  to  establish  one's  self.  —  In  his  room,  i.  e.  in  the  room 
of  the  old  king. 

(16)  There  is  no  end  to  all  the  people,  to  all  before  Avhom  he  was,  [whose 
leader  he  was] ;  moreover,  those  who  come  afterwards  will  not  rejoice  in 
him.     Truly  this  also  is  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

Before  whom  he  was ;  many  refer  '^ssb  to  time,  but  this  makes 
no  sense  approj)riate  to  the  writer's  purpose.  He  is  describing 
the  popularity  of  the  young  king.  He  has  just  said,  that  all  the 
people  are  with  him,  and  now  he  adds  that  he  is  leader  —  is  he- 
fore  —  a  mass  of  men  not  to  be  numbered  —  there  is  no  end  to 
them.  That  the  Heb.  idiom  readily  admits  this  sense,  may  be 
easily  shown.  In  1  K.  16:  21,  it  is  twice  said,  that  half  of  the 
people  were  after  such  and  such  an  one,  i.  e.  followed  him  as 
their  leader.  In  Num.  27  :  17,  the  leader  is  characterized  by 
saying :  "  He  shall  go  out  before  them  [the  people],  and  come  in 
before  them^  The  same  is  said  of  David,  1  Sam.  18:  16  ;  also 
of  Solomon,  2  Chron.  1:  10. — TJx  makes  the  suff.  pron.  trt  a 
relative,  §  121.  1.  —  rm  relates  of  course  to  the  young  king. 
Thus  we  gain  a  consistent  and  continuous  sentiment;  and  so 
Hitzig  and  Knobel,  while  Ewald  and  Heiligs.  refer  "^asb  to  time, 
which  appears  to  be  altogether  irrelevant.  —  n'^iinnxn  ,  the  after- 
comers,  i.  e.  those  who  come  on  the  stage  of  action  after  the  ele- 
vation of  the  young  man  to  the  throne,  will  take  a  different 
course  from  that  of  those  who  surrounded  him  with  huzzaings  at 
the  outset.  Such  was  the  case  with  Jeroboam.  The  terrible 
message  communicated  to  him  by  the  prophet  Abijah  (1  K.  14: 
15* 


174  Chap.  IV.  16. 

7 — 16),  and  the  testimony  concerning  him  in  2  K.  17  :  21,  show 
that,  with  all  the  good  and  pious  among  the  ten  tribes,  he  must 
have  been  held  in  abhorrence  for  his  gross  idolatry.  While  the 
mourning  of  Israel  over  the  grave  of  his  infant  child  is  particu- 
larly related  (1  K.  14:  18),  not  a  word  of  this  nature  is  spoken 
about  him,  on  the  occasion  of  his  death.  The  opposite  of  regret 
is  implied  in  1  K.  14:  10,  11.  The  wars  which  he  waged  (1  K. 
14:  19)  must  have  occasioned  heavy  taxes  to  be  laid  upon  the 
people,  and  this  would  render  him  odious ;  for  in  the  light  of  a 
conqueror  he  is  not  presented,  and  conquest  only  could  secure 
popularity  in  such  a  case.  —  So  we  may  conclude,  with  our  text, 
that  they,  viz.  the  people  who  lived  under  him,  would  not  rejoice 
in  him.  —  This  too  is  vanity ;  truly  so,  because  the  object  of  his 
rebellion  and  treason  was  not  attained,  viz.  a  quiet  settlement  on 
a  throne.  Such  is  the  end  of  all  projects  of  mere  ambition.  It 
is  fruitless  effort.  —  The  13  before  the  last  clause  has  made  some 
difficulty.  But  it  is  unnecessary. — 13,  at  the  head  of  a  sentence 
or  clause,  not  unfrequently  is  an  intensive  (§  152.  II.  d.  Lex.  'iS, 
6,  c),  and  is  equivalent  to  the  Lat.  imo,  or  the  German ^a,  i.  e.  = 
yea,  indeed,  truly ;  see  Is.  32  :  13.  15  :  1.  Ps.  71 :  23.  77  :  12. 
Ex.  22  :  22.  Job  8:6.  So  Ewald,  Gramm.  §  320.  h.  (5th  edit.), 
who  has  finely  illustrated  this  use  of  the  particle,  which  is  im- 
perfectly treated  of  in  Ges.  Gramm.  and  Lex.  —  da  denotes  ad- 
dition, cumulation.  Here  the  addition  is  to  the  preceding  vani- 
ties ;  also  this,  or  (as  we  must  express  it  here  in  our  idiom)  this 
:too,  this  also,  i.  e.  this  matter  must  be  added  to  the  list  of  vani- 
ties.   Ambition,  then,  comes  out  badly  at  last. 

If  we  are  correct  in  referring  the  old  Icing  to  Solomon  under 
the  guidance  of  his  heathen  wives,  and  the  young  man  to  Jero- 
boam, there  still  remains  some  difficulty  in  the  case.  Rehoboam, 
Solomon's  son  and  successor,  is,  to  all  appearance,  not  brought  to 
view ;  and  this  seems  somewhat  strange.  Perhaps,  however, 
there  is  in  reality  a  reference  to  him  implied,  by  the  ^yq ,  which 
designates  Jeroboam  in  v.  15.  I  have  supposed  above  (on  v.  15), 
that  it  may  mean  the  successor  of  Solomon,  as  king  to  the  great 
mass  of  the  Hebrew  nation.  But  I  do  not  see,  on  the  whole, 
why  we  may  not  suppose,  that  i3ij  designates  Jeroboam,  and  refers 
to  Rehoboam,  as  being  implied  by  the  first,  because  his  birth  and 


Chap.  IV.  16.  175 

rank  gave  him  the  lawful  title  to  the  kingdom.  A  second  lb;; 
would  seem  to  imply  that  there  was  ajirst  ^h'l ;  and  if  so,  this 
must  have  been  Rehoboam. 

Hitzig  concedes  the  applicability  of  vs.  13 — 16  to  Solomon 
and  Jeroboam ;  but  the  fact  that  Rehoboam  is  not  adverted  to,  he 
thinks  so  strange,  that  we  must  seek  elsewhere  for  an  explana- 
tion of  the  passage.  Accordingly,  he  goes  down  to  the  time  of 
Ptolemy  Euergetes,  king  of  Egypt,  (fl.  246—221  b.  c),  and 
linds  that  the  high  j^riest  of  that  time,  Onias,  is  represented  as 
old  and  foolish  by  Josephus  (Antiqq.  xii.  4),  and  that  his  nephew, 
Joseph,  is  described  as  being  a  shrewd  manager,  who  wrested  his 
office  from  his  uncle,  and  then,  in  consequence  of  being  farmer  of 
the  Syrian  tribute-revenue,  he  afterwards  became  unpopular.  He 
even  finds  in  0t/oA«,  Joseph's  native  place,  another  form  of  Pldge- 
la,  an  Ionian  town  built  by  fugitives,  as  the  name  imports.  This 
then,  as  Hitz.  supposes,  is  the  tinJifeh  n'la  from  which  the  young 
man  comes.  —  All  this  is  ingenious,  no  doubt,  yet  not  very  satis- 
factory ;  for  first,  there  is  no  evidence  worthy  of  credit,  that  any 
part  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  was  written  so  late  as  246 — 221 
B.  c. ;  and  secondly,  Onias  was  not  king,  while  the  old  and  fool- 
ish man  of  our  text  is  king ;  nor  Avas  Joseph  a  hing,  who  ousted 
and  succeeded  him.  Still,  it  is  mainly  on  this  ground,  that  Hit- 
zig puts  the  authorship  of  Coheleth  down  to  the  time  of  Euer- 
getes, (Vorbemerk.  §  4.)  Surely  this  has  slender  support,  and 
is  on  the  whole  a  real  ""n  '];;':" .  Nothing  but  desperation  in  neol- 
ogy, as  it  seems  to  me,  could  have  contrived  such  an  interpreta- 
tion as  this.  It  cannot  appear  very  inviting,  at  all  events,  to 
such  as  do  not  sympathize  with  the  critical  views  of  the  con- 
triver. In  fact,  a  consummate  Heb.  philologist,  as  Hitzig  clearly 
is,  ought  not  to  risk  his  reputation  on  such  a  phantasy  as  this. 
How  could  he  reasonably  expect,  that  others  would  be  satisfied 
with  such  criticism,  who  should  investigate  for  themselves?  I 
trust  that  few  of  such  will  be  brought  to  believe,  that  the  office 
of  a  priest  and  a  king  is  the  same.  And  whoever  looks  at  Jo- 
sephus's  a  ".count  of  Joseph,  will  find  a  very  different  character 
from  that  of  the  lb;; .  It  must  be  a  desperate  cause  that  needs 
such  aid  as  this,  or  can  induce  any  one  to  rely  upon  it. 


176  Chap.  IV.  17. 

§  8.  In  what  way,  under  such  circumstances,  a  man  ought  to  demean 
himself  in  respect  to  the  ordinances  of  God. 

IV.  17— y.  6. 

[Thus  far  all  has  been  description  of  the  evils  and  disappointments  of  life, 
interspersed  with  a  few  incidental  remarks.  A  new  turn  is  now  given  to 
the  discourse.  It  becomes  preceptive  and  monilory,  which  thus  far  it  has  not 
been.  The  first  great  question  for  a  man  Avho  reverences  God  is:  '  How 
shall  I  demean  myself  toward  him,  when  his  providence  has  placed  me  in 
the  midst  of  such  trials  and  disappointments,  from  which  there  is  no  escape  1 
Shall  I  shun  his  presence,  and  cease  to  Avorship  him,  since  I  despair  of  any 
solid  good  in  tlie  present  life  ?  If  not,  how  can  I  propitiate  him,  or  how 
worship  him  acceptably  V  This  brings  the  question  to  a  point,  where  Cohe- 
leth  feels  it  needful  to  interpose  and  give  his  advice.  He  addresses  the  ques- 
tioner in  the  way  of  precepts  and  precautions.  Hence  the  second  person 
(which  has  not  before  appeared),  in  the  precepts  that  follow.  As  the  transition 
is  so  great  from  4  :  IG  Avith  the  preceding  context  to  the  subject  in  4:  17,  it  is 
wonderful  that  those  who  divided  the  Ileb.  Scriptures  into  chapters  should 
not  have  joined  4:17  with  what  follows  in  Chap.  V.,  as  is  done  in  our  English 
version.     The  present  division  in  the  Heb.,  helps  to  bewilder  the  reader.] 

(17)  Keep  thy  foot  when  thou  goest  to  the  house  of  God:  and  to  draw 
near  to  hear  is  better  than  the  sacrificial-feast  which  is  given  by  fools  ;  for 
they  know  not  how  to  be  sad. 

In  ^■''brit'?  the  vowels  are  adapted  to  the  sing,  "r^^y^,  as  the 
Masoretic  marginal  note  indicates.  With  the  latter  agree  the 
versions  of  the  Sept.,  Syr.,  Vulg.,  and  most  of  the  modern  critics. 
See  the  sing.,  also,  in  like  cases,  in  Pro  v.  1:15.  4:26.  Keep  thy 
foot  =  look  well  to  thy  going ;  seek  to  go  safely  and  surely  by 
looking  well  to  thy  steps.  —  Goest  to  the  house  of  God,  seems  to 
imply,  that  both  the  adviser  and  those  whom  he  designs  to  in- 
struct live  in  the  vicinity  of  the  temple,  where  they  often  and 
habitually  worship.  It  seems  probable,  from  this,  that  the  author 
wrote  this  book  at  Jerusalem  or  in  its  vicinity,  or  at  least  had 
lived  there.  —  d'i|5'i ,  Inf.  abs.  Piel,  and  so  it  may  be  of  any  mode 
or  person,  §  128.  4.  6 ;  here  it  means  the  approaching  or  drawing 
near.  Here  too  it  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence ;  which  is  rare, 
§  128.  4.  n.  1.  comp.  Job  40 :  2.  Ezek.  1 :  14.  The  object  is  to 
show  what  keeping  the  foot,  etc.,  signifies.  An  approaching  to 
hear,  denotes  entrance  into  the  interior  temple,  where  the  priests 
read  the  law,  and  uttered  their  exhortations ;  see  Deut.  33  :  10. 
Mic.  3:  11.     Mai.  2 :  6,  7,  comp.  Acts.  3:  11.  — ntn^,  i.  e.  yq 


Chap.  IV.  17.  177 

before  the  Inf.  rn  (from  ]r^),  which  is  a  contraction  of  p?n  fern. 
Lif.  Before  this  word  (nnTa)  did  is  plainly  implied,  (because 
a  is  comparative,  §  117.  1.),  but  it  is  not  here  expressed;  as  e.  g. 
in  9:  17.  Ezek,  15:  2.  Is.  10:  10,  al.,  where  it  is  omitted. 
Accordingly  I  have  rendered  it  —  better  than  the  instituting  or 
giving  by  fools  of  a  sacrificial-feast.  —  cb^psri  (article  before  a 
whole  class)  is  the  agent  or  subject  of  nn ;  but  as  it  is  impossible, 
in  our  language,  to  imitate  the  Heb.  construction,  I  have  desig- 
nated the  agency  in  the  translation  thus  :  Z>y  fools.  —  That  nnt 
(in  Pause  n3T)  may  and  does  often  mean  the  feast  on  a  part  of 
the  victim  which  is  offered,  is  plain ;  see  Lex.  and  comp.  Prov. 
17:1.  Is.  22:13.  Dent.  33:  19.  Here,  as  the  offerers  are 
l^lural  (fools),  and  the  feast  singular,  it  is  probably  indicated, 
that  while  one  victim  is  sacrificed  and  feasted  on,  there  is  a 
company  who  sit  down  at  the  feast  upon  it.  Such,  indeed,  was 
the  usage  ;  comp.  1  Sam.  9:13.  2  K.  1  :  9,  41.  If  this  were  not 
meant,  we  should  expect  D^^nnt  in  correspondence  wdth  Di^^^CiSil 
—  The  "IS  causal,  that  begins  the  last  clause,  indicates  a  reason 
why  the  offerers  in  the  preceding  clause  are  called  fools.  When 
they  go  to  the  temple,  instead  of  going  there  to  be  instructed, 
instead  of  entering  the  inner  court  and  listening  to  prayers  and 
instructions,  they  content  themselves  with  staying  in  the  outer 
court,  and  there  holding  their  sacrificial-feast,  accompanied  by 
their  friends,  for  the  sake  of  social  enjoyment.  There  they  eat 
and  drink  for  pleasure,  and  are  merry  withal.  This  the  writer 
opposes  to,  and  contrasts  with,  that  sadness  which  becomes  a 
penitent,  who  goes  to  the  temple  to  confess  his  sins,  to  offer 
sacrifice  for  expiation,  and  to  hear  the  monitions  of  divine  truth. 
All  this  imports  godly  sorrow  and  penitence,  with  desire  to  be 
corrected.  But  fools  neglect  this  part  of  duty.  They  go  to  the 
temple  to  keep  up  appearances  as  worshippers,  but  mainly  for 
the  pleasure  of  the  social  feast.  This  is  the  doing  of  fools,  and 
not  of  men  who  act  reasonably.  They  are  full  of  exhilaration 
and  merriment,  and  do  not  feel  or  exhibit  any  of  the  sadness 
which  contrition  occasions.  —  That  i'"!  (in  pause  r"^)  often  means 
sadness,  is  made  clear  in  Lex.  Cases  in  point,  which  cannot 
be  mistaken  as  to  the  meaning  of  ""i  nib:?,  may  be  found  in  2 
Sam.  12:  18;  and  the  opposite,  viz.  niiJ  nto,  in  Ecc.  3:  12 
above.     As  the  latter  clearly  means  to  ejijoy  good  or  procure 


178  Chap.  IV.  17. 

pleasure^  so  the  former  means  lit.  to  make  sad,  i.  e.  to  demean 
one's  self  with  sadness.  The  idea  of  a  suffering  condition  stands 
connected  with  it ;  for  sadness  comes  through  this.  But  it  is  by- 
no  means  confined  to  physical  suffering ;  it  extends  to  mental. 
Fools  know  not  how  to  sorrow  for  the  sins  which  occasioned  the 
nint  in  question.  But  he  who  keeps  his  foot  —  i.  e.  looks  well  to 
his  goings  —  will  avoid  their  folly.  He  will  go  up  to  the  temple 
with  becoming  solemnity,  and  will  be  sorrowful  or  sad  for  his  sins, 
and  listen  to  admonition. 

This  explanation  I  owe  to  Hitzig.  Its  correctness,  as  to  truly 
representing  the  Heb.  idiom,  cannot  well  be  questioned.  But 
others  translate  differently,  and  after  the  old  fashion :  Knob. : 
That  do  not  concern  themselves  about  evil-doing  ;  Ewald  :  Be- 
cause they  knoiv  not  that  they  do  evil;  Heiligs. :  Nam  nesciunt 
se  facere  malum.  But  what  is  the  evil,  in  this  case  ?  Not  the 
mere  offering  of  sacrifice  ;  for  that  the  Law  commands.  If  real 
ignorance  of  evil  is  implied  by  the  last  clause,  would  not  this  pal- 
liate instead  of  enhancing  their  fault  ?  To  put  them  in  fault,  they 
must  neglect  some  known  duty.  When  they  feast  and  carouse, 
and  sorrow  not  for  sin,  they  neglect  the  obvious  duty  of  one  Avho 
brings  a  sacrifice.  Therefore  they  act  foolishly,  and  therefore  are 
they  called  fools.  The  word  c'^r^i''  is  not  confined  to  mere 
mental  perception ;  for  the  word  also  means  advertere  animiim, 
providere,  curare,  to  take  knowledge  of  a  thing,  in  the  sense  of 
looking  after  it  and  caring  for  it  ;  see  Lex.  s.  v.  No.  7.  The  above 
modes  of  exegesis,  then,  are  conformed  neither  to  the  Heb.  idiom, 
nor  to  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  In  the  other  mode  of  interpre- 
tation, M^e  obtain  an  excellent  sentiment  :  '  Wlien  thou  goest  to 
worship  God,  go  not  to  indulge  in  levity  and  mirth,  but  to  humble 
thyself  and  be  sad  for  thy  sins.  Fools  stay  in  the  outer  court, 
where  they  can  indulge  in  the  first ;  go  thou  into  the  inner  one, 
where  thou  canst  be  made  better  by  sadness.'  See  this  sentiment 
fully  and  explicitly  repeated  and  confirmed  in  Ecc.  7  :  3 — 6. 
It  is  indeed  plain,  that  men  are  not  fools  for  offering  an  appointed 
sacrifice  ;  nor  yet  from  mere  ignorance  about  its  true  value  ;  but 
they  are  fools  for  refusing  to  receive  the  obvious  instruction  which 
such  a  transaction  implicitly  gives,  viz.  that  the  offerer  should  be 
penitent,  and  desirous  of  admonition. 


Chap.  V.  1,  2.  179 


Chap.  V. 

(1 )  Be  not  hasty  with  thy  mouth,  and  let  not  thy  heart  urge  thee  on  to  utter 
words  before  God :  for  God  is  in  heaven,  and  tliou  art  on  eartli,  tliercforc  let 
thy  words  be  few. 

The  preceding  verse  brings  to  view  the  subject  of  sacrifice ; 
but  here  we  liave  the  duty  o^ prayer,  which  would  naturally  follow 
on.  Caution  is  given  against  hasty  and  thoughtless  utterance  of 
words  in  prayer.  —  Be  not  hasty  with  thy  mouth,  ^"^S  h'$ ,  like 
ivdb  h'S  Ps.  15:3,  lit.  means,  on  thy  mouth.  We  say :  Let  no 
slander  be  on  thy  tongue ;  but  the  Hebrews  have  extended  the 
usage  further,  and  speak  of  the  mouth  in  general  as  the  seat  or 
source  of  utterance,  or  on  which  utterance  rests.  —  '^S'l ,  a  word, 
i.  e.  any  word,  any  one  thing  in  thy  prayer.  —  Before  God,  here 
means  in  the  temple  where  he  peculiarly  dwelt ;  but  the  spirit  of 
the  precept  will  apply  to  prayer  anywhere,  or  at  any  time.  — 
God  is  in  heaven  and  thou  on  earth,  i.  e.  God  is  infinitely  exalted 
above  all  created  things,  but  thou  art  only  one  of  the  latter,  and 
on  his  footstool;  comp.  Ps.  115  :  3.  —  Let  thy  words  be  few,  i.  e. 
do  not  speak  much  and  at  random,  as  men  in  light  and  free  con- 
versation with  familiar  friends  and  equals  are  apt  to  do.  Speak 
as  penetrated  by  reverential  awe  of  the  exalted  majesty  and 
power  of  God.  —  d"^*?"?  ,  a  Pilel  form  from  ::r^  ,feivness;  used 
only  in  the  later  Hebrew. 

(2)  For  a  dream  cometh  with  much  occupation,  and  the  voice  of  a  fool 
with  a  multitude  of  words. 

"i;^?:?  (not  n"i3S;i3),  not  hand-labor,  but  occupation  in  business  that 
tries  and  perplexes  the  mind.  Common  experience  shows  how 
often  the  fact  here  stated  is  verified.  —  And  a  fooVs  voice,  etc., 
i.  e.  only  the  foolish  prattle  and  outpour  a  flood  of  words.  The 
two  parts  of  the  verse  include  a  comparison,  iov  the  Hebrew  often 
makes  a  comparison  with  only  i  between  the  members  of  it,  which 
in  such  cases  may  well  be  rendered  and  so  or  and  thus;  §  152.  B.  3. 
If  the  phras(  were  filled  out,  3  or  "jS  would  be  inserted  between 
the  two  parts.  The  intimation  of  the  verse  is,  that  dreamy 
visions  have  as  much  substance  as  the  prattle  of  the  fool ;  or,  in 
other  words,  overdoing  in  business  or  in  talking  is  followed  by  a 
dreamy  sequel. 


180  Chap.  V.  3—5. 

The  two  preceding  verses  are  not  directed  against  earnest, 
repeated,  or  even  long  prayers,  where  they  proceed  from  the  heart, 
and  are  uttered  with  holy  earnestness  and  fervour.  The  Saviour's 
words  in  Matt.  G  :  6 — 13  are  a  good  comment  on  the  true  meaning. 
It  is  much,  and  light,  and  thoughtless  loquacity  before  God,  which 
is  disapproved  and  rebuked,  as  showing  want  of  due  reverence. 
This  is  the  ground  or  reason  (tS  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse), 
why  the  words  should  be  few. 

(3)  When  thou  shalt  make  a  vow  unto  God,  make  no  delay  to  pay  it.  for 
there  is  no  pleasure  in  fools ;  Avhatever  thou  shall  vow,  pay  it. 

That  is,  only  fools  delay  to  fulfil  or  to  pay  their  vows  ;  do  thou 
not  be  one  of  them.  —  Make  a  vow,  we  say  in  English  ;  but  the 
Hebrews  said,  vow  a  vow.  We  can  say  the  same,  but  commonly 
do  not.  —  No  pleasure^  i.  e.  there  is  no  complacency  on  the  part  of 
God  toward  the  conduct  of  such  as  neglect  their  vows.  —  i'nlT! , 
Imperf.  of  'n'lS ,  answers  to  the  conditional  fut.  here. 

(4)  It  is  better  that  thou  shouldest  not  vow,  than  that  thou  shouldost  vow 
and  not  pay. 

In  other  words :  As  vows  are  a  voluntary  thing,  and  not  a  pre- 
scribed duty,  it  is  much  better  to  forbear  making  them,  than  to 
make  and  then  violate  them  ;  for  by  this,  one  incurs  the  guilt  of 
falsehood  or  perjury.  —  'ni'n!n^5^,  ^  is  the  comparative  =  than; 
t:  =  'niijx ,  as  often  in  this  book.  All  three  Dagheshes  arise  from 
omitted  letters,  viz.  3 ,  ^ ,  and  D . 

The  two  preceding  verses  have  respect  to  what  often  took  place 
among  worshippers.  They  asked  certain  things  of  God,  and 
vowed  to  render  certain  offerings  of  gratitude  in  case  they  ob- 
tained them.  It  was  natural  to  associate  such  acts  with  the 
subject  of  prayer,  as  all  belonged  to  the  subject  of  religion. 

(5)  Let  not  thy  mouth  bring  punishment  upon  thy  flesh;  and  say  not  be- 
fore the  messenger,  that  it  was  an  error.  Why  should  God  be  displeased  on 
account  of  thy  words,  and  destroy  the  Avork  of  thy  hands  '? 

Nearly  all  the  expositors  translate  ^^'^rh  by  cause  to  sin. 
To  tliis  there  are  several  objections  :  (1)  The  O.  Test,  does  not 
employ  "nba  in  the  sense  of  adq"^  in  the  N.  Test. ;  the  Jiesh,  in 


Chap.  V.  5.  181 

the  Ileb.  Scriptures  is  not  the  sinner,  but  the  mind,  heart,  soul,  are 
the  sinners.  (2)  This  mode  of  explaining  does  not  well  coincide 
with  the  last  part  of  the  verse,  which  api)ears  to  ask  the  question 
(in  the  way  of  remonstrance),  why  the  punishment  in  question 
need  be  incurred.  27/e  destrofjinf/  of  ones  handy-icorh,  seems  to  aim 
at  expressing,  for  substance,  the  same  thing  as  the  punishment  of  the 
flesh.  Ges.  (Lex.),  under  Hiph.  of  the  verb,  has  not,  indeed,  given 
the  meaning  assigned  to  it  above  ;  but  under  rj<un  (the  noun), 
■  he  has  given  us  poena,  cqlamitas,  as  one  of  the  meanings,  i.  e.  the 
consequence  of  sin.  The  same  is  the  case  with  "j^'J ,  which  signi- 
fies crimen,  and  very  often  also  poena,  calamitas.  And  so  r'iB ,  de- 
lictum, and  also  jooe?zo.  This  gives  us  a  clue  to  the  Hiph.  of  the  verb, 
5<"jn  ;  it  may  mean  either  to  cause  to  sin,  or  to  subject  to  punishment, 
i.  e.  to  the  consequences  of  sin,  having  the  same  twofold  sense  as 
the  noun.  The  mouth  that  speaks  much  and  at  random,  and  utters 
false  vows,  is  of  course  the  cause  of  the  punishment  that  follows. 
The  sinning  is  described  in  vs.  1 — 4 ;  the  consequences  in  v.  5 ;, 
for  this  does  not  describe  a  new  sin,  but  adverts  to  those  already 
described.  —  nr^  is  the  animal  man  as  the  seat  of  feeling,  the 
body  which  suffers  penal  consequences  in  the  present  world ; 
comp.  Job  14 :  22,  which  gives  the  exact  idea  of  the  word  in  such 
a  connection.  —  T|5<^53n ,  the  messenger,  i.  e.  the  person  commis- 
sioned to  explain  the  laAv  of  God,  and  propound  it  to  the  people, 
i.  e.  God's  ambassador.  In  the  present  case,  the  priest  of  course  is 
meant,  before  whom  confession  of  sin  is  to  be  made.  The  same 
sense  of  the  word  in  Mai.  2  :  7.  But  in  neither  case  should  we 
translate  by  priest.  How  the  priest  was  concerned  with  vows, 
may  be  seen  in  Lev.  27  :  2  seq.  —  ^"z  here  merely  introduces 
direct  speech,  like  on  in  Greek.  —  "^^^"^  well  characterizes  the  sin 
in  question  here,  for  the  root  means  :  to  commit  a  faidt  through 
error  or  imprudence.  Hitzig  translates  :  Unbesonnenheit,  i.  e.  an 
act  of  inconsideration  ;  altogether  ad  rem,  for  hasty  vowing  is 
still  in  the  view  of  the  writer.  We  cannot  hit  the  mark  quite  so 
well  in  English.  The  design  of  the  whole  clause  is  not  to  pro- 
hibit confesrion  before  the  priest,  after  a  fault  has  been  commit- 
ted, but  to  teach  that  a  man  should  avoid  the  necessity  of  making 
a  confession,  by  avoiding  the  sin  which  will  demand  one.  —  bx  be- 

16 


182  Chap.  V.  6. 

fore  the  first  two  clauses  is  the  negative  before  a  hortatory  verb 
=  the  Greek  p/,  while  ^"b  is  positive  and  =  the  Greek  ov. — 
K'ln  it  ivas,  viz.  the  thing  done  was.  —  n^ab  ,  for  what  ?  why  ?  It 
is  the  intensive  interrogative  of  one  dissuading  or  rebuking.  — 
T^\ip  (-  with  a  pause-accent),  see  b'^DS  bip  in  v.  2.  It  means 
words  uttered  by  or  with  the  voice,  or  what  the  voice  declares, 
and  tlius  it  is  of  a  ffe?ieric  sense.  I  have  therefore  rendered  it 
by  words.  21ie  work  of  thy  hands,  means  any  active  employment 
or  business  in  which  a  man  is  engaged.  His  undertakings  may 
be  frustrated  or  destroyed  in  a  great  variety  of  ways,  by  sickness, 
by  untimely  accidents,  or  by  misfortune  (as  we  say)  of  any  kind. 
Such  is  the  threatened  punishment ;  which,  like  the  threats  in  the 
Pent,  and  nearly  througliout  the  0.  Test.,  has  a  reference,  pri- 
marily, to  chastisements  in  the  present  woild.  It  is  rather  by 
inference,  than  by  direct  and  plain  words,  that  a  state  oi  future 
punishment  is  disclosed  in  the  Heb.  Scriptures. 

(6)  For  in  a  multitude  of  dreams  there  are  indeed  vanities  ;  and  so  [in] 
many  words  :  but  fear  thou  God. 

This  verse  is  a  general  summary  of  vs.  1 — 5,  making  a  conclu- 
sion of  the  paragraph.  One  must  refrain  from  idle  prattling  in 
prayer,  and  from  false  vows;  because,  like  dreams,  they  come  to 
nothing,  or  are  of  no  avail.  The  "^S  at  the  outset  is  causal,  since 
a  reason  is  given  for  refraining  from  the  things  before  specified. 
—  The  ^  before  D"^^nn  is  intensive,  §  152.  B.  2.  The  ^i  before 
n^'nn'n  means  and  so,  because  comparison  is  made  by  it,  §  152. 
B.  3.  The  n  in  i"a  is  by  implication  carried  forward  to  D"''-;^- , 
as  translated  above.  —  ^3 ,  before  the  last  clause,  is  disjunctive 
and  adversative  =  hut ;  see  Lex.  "r,  No.  6.  —  Fear  thou  the  God 
(lit.),  where  the  article  marks  the  only  living  and  true  God,  xhv 
S^tov.  The  word  r.irr;  never  occurs  in  this  book.  At  the  period 
■when  this  book  was  written,  the  ovo^a  dcpcxivtjzov  began  to  be 
disu^ed  ;  and  it  is  eveiywhere  dropped  in  the  version  of  tlie 
Seventy,  who  always  read  (as  the  Jews  now  do)  ""nx  in  the 
room  of  n^rr; .  Sentiment :  '  Many  words,  like  many  dreams, 
come  to  nothing  ;  fear  God,  so  as  neither  to  speak  lightly  or 
vow  falsely.' 


Chap.  V.  7.  183 


§  0.  Sapplemenlary  reflections  on  various  topics,  wJdch  lead  to  the 
same  general  result  as  before. 

Chap.  V.  7—19. 

[The  topic  o^  oppression,  made  so  prominent  in  3:  16.  4:  1,  is  here  brought 
again  to  view,  and  some  mitigation  of  the  evil  is  suggested.  The  Most  High 
will  watch  and  oversee  rulers,  vs.  7, 8.  The  covetous  can  enjoy  no  real  good  ; 
they  can  only  look  at  their  wealth.  The  industrious  labourer  has  much  the 
ad  antageovcr  them.  Wealth  often  injures  its  possessors,  and  perishes  by 
adverse  occurrences,  so  that  it  does  not  continue  even  for  one's  own  children. 
At  the  most,  the  rich  can  carry  awny  nothing  with  them  at  their  death  ;  and 
while  they  were  living,  much  vexation  en>ucd  from  the  acquisition  of  wealth 
and  the  safe  guarding  of  it ;  vs.  9 — 16.  To  enjoy  the  fruits  of  labor  as  they 
are  gathered,  therefore,  is  fit  and  proper,  and  this  must  be  regarded  as  the  gift 
of  God  ;  for  men  could  not,  of  themselves,  attain  even  to  so  much.  A  man 
who  enjoys  this,  will  in  a  good  measu)-e  forget  his  sorrows,  while  God  makes 
all  things  respond  to  the  joys  of  his  heart:  vs.  17 — 19.] 

(7)  If  thou  shall  see  oppression  of  the  poor,  and  robbery  of  judgment  and 
justice  in  the  province,  be  not  astonished  concerning  such  a  matter,  for  there 
is  one  higli  above  him  who  is  elevated,  a  watchful  observer,  yea,  there  are 
those  high  above  them. 

And  robbery  of  judgment  and  justice,  p'^2  is  in  the  Gen.,  as  well 
as  the  preceding  noun,  and  both  stand  related  to  bn .  Oppressive 
magistrates  often  refuse  trial  of  the  causes  of  the  poor,  from 
motives  of  haughtiness  or  self-interest ;  and  when  they  do  try 
them,  they  rob  them  of  their  just  rights  by  a  wrong  decision.  —  In, 
the  province,  i.  e.  in  the  particular  province  to  which  the  person 
seeing  belongs  ;  see  on  2  :  8,  and  comp.  Est.  1:1.  The  Hebrew 
kingdom  was  divided  into  provinces  for  the  sake  of  collecting 
imposts  and  revenues.  —  n^pn ,  astounded  here,  reg.  with  n  Map- 
piq,  i.  e.  vocal  as  a  consonant,  at  the  end,  and  therefore  a  regular 
guttural  verb.  — 1*^"^!  j  the  matter,  as  several  times  before.  The 
art.  is  prefixed,  because  it  refers  to  the  particular  matter  just 
mentioned.  —  nh?, ,  elevated,  high.  —  b>"a,  lit.  on  the  part  of  over, 
i.  e.  above  •  see  h-J,  B.  in  Lex.  The  second  nbj.  designates  the 
oppressive  magistrate  who  is  elevated  to  office  ;  the  first  n'lJ  desig- 
nates his  superior  in  office,  i.  e.  one  above  him  in  point  of  rank. 
Tiiis  superior  magistrate  is  a  "rcir,  one  who  watches  over  any 
things  or  persons,  and  observes  all  actions  in  order  to  take  cogni- 


184  Chap.  V.  8. 

zance  of  them.  The  implication  seems  to  be,  that  in  such  a  case 
he  will  call  to  an  account  the  oppressor.  But  if  not,  then,  as  an 
ultimate  resort,  there  are  D"inhi\ ,  lit.  elevated  ones,  over  them  both. 
I  take  the  last  word,  in  the  plural  form  here,  to  relate  to  God,  the 
Most  High,  the  plur.  being  intensive  (§  lOG.  2.  h.),  and  so  like  to 
other  plural  participles  and  adjectives  applied  to  the  Supreme 
Being:  e.  g.  D-^dnp,  IIos.  12:  1.  Prov.  9  :  10.  30  :  3  ;  c\s:n2, 
Ecc.  12:  1.  V3^"\?  (Chald.  plur.)  Dan.  7:  18,  22,  25,  27.  The 
last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us  contains  a  reason  why  one 
should  not  be  astonished,  since  it  is  introduced  by  "^S.  Sentiment : 
*  When  inferior  magistrates  are  oppressive,  and  in  the  habit  of 
robbing  and  plundering  the  poor,  do  not  regard  this  as  a  perplex- 
ing, inexplicable,  and  hopeless  matter.  An  appeal  lies  to  a  higher 
court ;  (see  Acts  25  :  11)  ;  but  if  the  matter  still  goes  on  adversely 
there,  then  remember  for  your  comfort  that  there  is  One  superior 
to  all,  who  will  bring  all  into  judgment.' 

Hitzig  makes  three  orders  of  magistrates,  all  concurring  in,  or 
conniving  at  the  same  injustice  and  oppression.  But  how  would 
a  knowledge  of  this  lessen  the  astonishment  of  the  beholder? 
Oppression  and  injustice  from  any  judge  of  causes,  is  always  a 
matter  of  astonishment  to  the  good  and  upright ;  and  if  so,  a  reg- 
ular series  of  them,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  magistrate, 
would  be  still  more  so.  Coheleth  advises  the  person  astonished 
to  consider  the  matter  in  its  ultimate  results.  Apparent  incon- 
sistencies in  the  government  of  Providence  will  then  be  much 
diminished,  if  they  do  not  entirely  disappear.  With  Hitzig's  exe- 
gesis one  cannot  well  rest  satisfied,  because  in  3  :  16,  17,  the  same 
complaint  is  made  as  here,  and  the  answer  to  it  is,  that  God  has 
appointed  a  time  for  judging  all.  This  is  too  plain  to  be  mis- 
understood ;  and  this  of  course  makes  plain  the  verse  under  dis- 
cussion, which  is  of  a  parallel  nature.  It  is  difficult  to  see,  how 
so  sharp-sighted  a  critic  as  Hitzig  could  overlook  this  obvious 
auxiliary  in  interpreting  the  verse  before  us. 

(8)  Moreover,  an  advantage  of  a  laud  in  all  this,  is  a  king  to  a  cultivated 
field. 

A  text  which  has  occasioned  no  little  difficulty  and  perplexity 
among  critics.  Our  first  object  is,  to  obtain  a  right  view  of  the 
grammatical  sense.     The   proposition  is  a  general  one ;  for  he 


Chap.  V.  8.  185 

says  not  the  country  or  the  land,  but  simply  "i^'nx  ,  a  land,  any  land. 
—  The  Kethibh  should  of  course  be  pointed  thus  :  K-^ri  ^ra ,  i.  e. 
in  all  this.  The  pointing  in  conformity  with  the  Qeri  would  be 
thus:  x^-ib'22.  AVe  must  then  translate  the  latter  as  follows: 
The  advantage  of  a  land — in  everything  is  it.  But  first,  this  is  in 
itself  an  extravagant  assertion  ;  at  the  same  time,  it  is  irrelative 
and  incongruous  with  respect  to  the  context,  which  affords  no 
reason  for  saying  this.  Next,  the  position  of  N^fi,  in  this  case,  is 
very  strange,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Qeri  is  the  right  reading  ; 
for  then  x^in  is  a  copida.  But  if  it  is  so,  it  should  be  placed  imme- 
diately after  the  subject,  and  not  (as  here)  after  both  subject  and 
predicate.  Besides,  a  copula  in  this  case  is  unnecessary,  §  141. 
It  is  only  when  emphasis  is  demanded,  that  it  is  inserted ;  and 
none  is  required  here.  The  Kethibh,  therefore,  viz.  5<in-brs ,  is 
undoubtedly  the  true  reading.  Compare  rjifbss  in  Is.  9  :  11,  20. 
10  :  4,  for  this  latter  expression  can  mean  only :  in  all  this ;  and 
jfi?!  ^32  is  virtually  the  same,  for  this  means  :  in  all  of  that  thing, 
(the  fem.  represents  the  neuter).  But  what  is  that  thing  "^  It  is 
what  is  described  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  the  need  of  pro- 
tection from  the  highest  ruler,  the  king,  against  oppression.  An 
advantage  to  a  land  is  it,  to  have  a  king  endowed  with  power  and 
will  to  interfere  and  protect.  This  cannot  be  a  king,  who  throuo-h 
oppression  lays  waste  a  land,  by  causing  its  poor  labouring  men 
under  his  yoke  to  despair  of  obtaining  anything  for  themselves  ; 
but  it  must  be  a  king  to  a  cultivated  field-land ;  a  king,  therefore 
who  renders  justice  to  the  poor,  and  encourages  the  labourer  to 
continue  his  toils,  instead  of  despoiling  him.  —  That  i:3"j;  JTib^ 
means  a  cultivated  field  or  champaign,  is  rendered  clear  by  Ezek. 
36 :  9,  34.  Deut.  21 :  4;  and  so  the  Sept.  translate.  The  word 
rrib  has  no  article,  because  j'-^x  has  none,  and  both  mean  sub- 
stantially the  same  thing.  The  proposition,  therefore,  is  general 
and  indefinite.  Sentiment :  '  To  any  land  exposed  to  oj^i^ression 
and  injustice,  it  is  an  advantage  to  have  a  king  who  reigns,  not 
over  a  country  made  desolate  by  oppression,  but  over  a  cultivated 
field-land.  Justice  will  then  be  so  administered,  that  the  country 
will  pour  forth  an  abundance  by  reason  of  the  poor  labourer's 
toil  in  cultivating  it ;  and  this  is  an  advantage.'  See  Prov.  14  :  28. 
1  merely  mention  some  of  the  renderings  of  the  last  clause 
here.  Kosenm :  rex  est  agro  addictus.  Herzfeld  :•  the  king  is  sub- 
16* 


186  Chap.  V.  8. 

ject  to  the  field.  Ewald  :  a  Icing  is  set  over  the  country.  Knobel : 
a  king  honored  hy  the  land.  Heiligstedt :  a  king  is  made  for  the 
field.  Eng.  version :  a  king  is  served  hy  the  field.  Not  one  of 
all  these  accords  with  the  grammatical  meaning  of  the  Hebrew. 
Rosenm.,  makes  the  king  only  a  lover  of  agriculture ;  Hertz.,  the 
king  to  be  servant  of  the  field :  Ewald,  a  king  set  over  the  field, 
(a  meaning  that  ^ns^.3  never  has)  ;  Knob.,  a  king  honoured,  etc., 
while  the  proper  word  for  this  is  "1^2^  ;  Heihgst.  (like  Ewald), 
a  king  teririe  j^raefectus ;  the  Eng.  version,  a  king  served  hy  the 
field,  which  is  nearer  than  any  of  the  others  to  the  Hebrew, 
but  still  gives  an  irrelevant  sense.  To  what  direct  purpose  is 
all  this,  or  rather,  are  all  these  views  ?  While  that  which  is 
given  above,  commends  itself  by  its  concinnity  with  the  context. 
Rulers  may  be  oppressive ;  they  often  and  usually  are  so ;  but  it 
is  an  advantage  to  any  land  where  the  poor  are  exposed  to 
oppression,  to  have  a  king  who  will  not  suffer  any  to  lay  waste 
his  domain  by  oppressing,  but  will  cause  it  to  be  cultivated  by 
dealing  justly  with  all. 

The  verse  is  probably  a  side  blow  at  some  tyrant  of  the  day, 
whose  measures  had  made  the  country  a  comparative  desolation. 
A  striking  illustration  of  the  effect  of  such  a  government  on  the 
country  is  found,  by  casting  our  eye  over  Palestine  and  Asia 
Minor ;  the  latter  of  which  once  had  an  immense  population,  but 
now  has  not  one  twentieth  part  of  the  numbers  which  it  could 
support.  Scarcely  any  region  of  the  earth  is  capable  of  support- 
ing more  inhabitants  on  its  soil.  Yet  Turkish  despotism  has 
made  it  a  waste.  The  Sultans  have  never  aimed  to  be  kings 
over  cultivated  fields,  and  have  been  something  very  different 
from  a  "\T\T\\  to  the  land.  Coheleth  seems  to  have  lived  under 
some  prince  of  such  a  character ;  and  while  he  complains  of 
oppression,  and  reminds  the  i^h;\ ,  or  king,  that  he  should  look  to 
his  under  officers,  he  reminds  him  also  of  his  responsibility  to  a 
higher  King,  and  that  he  would  be  a  blessing  to  his  realm,  if  by 
his  justice  and  equity  he  would  convert  the  whole  country  into  a 
cultivated  field.  It  is  comforting  to  the  oppressed,  when  such 
admonition  is  faithfully  given. 

These  views  in  respect  to  avaricious  and  rapacious  magistrates, 
naturally  led  the  mind  of  the  writer  to  the  consideration,  once 
mere,  of  riches  and  of  the  strife  to  acquire  them.     His  views  in 


CiiAP.  V.  9,  10.  187 

the  sequel  are  more  general,  and  are  not  confined  to  magistrates, 
although  ihey  are  doubtless  mcluded.  The  subject  lay  heavily 
upon  his  mind.  In  2 :  7 — 9  he  has  spoken  plainly  respecting 
regal  wealth.  In  4 :  8  he  returns  again  to  the  subject,  and  takes 
a  more  general  view.  But  now,  when  occasion  again  prompts, 
he  conies  out  more  fully  still,  and  contemplates  the  subject  from 
various  points  of  view. 

(9)  He  Avlio  loveth  silver  shall  not  be  satisfied  with  silver;  and  whoever 
loveth  wealth  shall  not  [be  satisfied]  with  levenue;  this  too  is  vanity. 

Silver  was  the  most  com-mon  coin,  and  therefore  is  employed 
here  as  the  representative  of  all  wealth.  The  second  :rp3  is  in 
the  Ace,  after  a,  vevh  of  Jilling,  §  135.  3.  b.  —  "li^na,  with  the 
article,  as  the  vowel  under  n  shows ;  for  pointing,  see  Lex.  n ; 
the  word  being  abstract,  it  naturally  takes  the  article  in  Hebrew, 
§  107.  n.  1.  c.  For  s,  after  nrix,  see  in  Lex.  s.  v.  That  yab'i  is 
implied  after  5<b  is  quite  plain ;  and  I  have  translated  accordingly. 
—  nx^nn  is  Ace.  after  this  verb  imphed.  Here  a  new  shape  is 
given  to  the  vanity  in  question.  The  eager  pursuit  of  wealth 
enkindles  desires  that  never  can  be  quenched  or  allayed.  Of 
course,  it  is  truly  a  tormenting  ^nfi . 

(10)  By  the  increase  of  goods,  they  who  consume  them  are  increased :  and 
what  advantage  is  there  to  their  owner,  except  the  looking  on  with  his  eyes  ? 

nn"::^!,  sing,  generic,  while  our  exactly  corresponding  Eng- 
lish word  (goods)  is  employed  only  in  the  plural,  in  the  sense 
here  required.  I  have  translated  in  accordance  with  our  idiom. 
The  article  is  put  here  before  a  word  designating  a  class  of 
things,  §  107.  n.  1.  b.  —  The  suff.  to  the  Part,  (ri-)  is  sing,  in 
order  to  correspond  with  the  noun  to  which  it  relates.  The 
same  with  the  suff.  in  ■I'^^rab ,  from  bra  —  nx  ^3 ,  see  in  Lex.  — 
n*^^'^  has  vowels  belonging  to  the  Qeri  nsixn .  Which  form  is 
preferable,  it  would  be  difficult  to  decide,  since  both  are  good. 
Both  of  these  forms  are  7iotms  of  the  Inf.  formation  ;  while  nin"! , 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  is  Inf.  nominascens.  —  That  "jl'ids 
does  not  here  mean  dexterity  (as  in  2 :  21),  is  plain  from  the  con- 
text, which  requires  such  a  meaning  as  I  have  given  in  the 
version  above.  —  Great  wealth  must  needs  be  furnished  with  a 
large   retinue,  to  guard  it   and  to  add  to  it ;  c.omp.  Job.  1:  3. 


188  Chap.  V.  11—13. 

These  must  consume  much ;  so  that  the  owner  can  do  no  more 
than  gratify  his  eyes  for  a  time,  by  looking  at  his  treasures.  — 
T^a^^ ,  his  eyes,  but  1  sing,  refers  to  the  preceding  apparently  plur. 
noun.  But  still,  as  the  plur.  of  this  noun  (like  nin?x)  has 
always  a  sing,  meaning  (see  Lex.),  the  concord  ad  sensum  is 
complete,  §  107.  2.  h. 

(11)  Sweet  is  the  sleep  of  the  labourer,  whether  he  cat  little  or  much; 
but  the  abundance  of  the  rich  man  does  not  permit  him  to  sleep. 

Here  is  another  defect  in  riches.  The  poor  labourer  has  quiet 
sleep,  and  is  so  hardy  that  whether  he  has  more  or  less  food  it 
does  not  disquiet  him.  The  rich  are  kept  awake  through  fear  of 
losing  their  riches ;  or  perhaps  the  writer  alludes  to  the  satiety 
of  the  rich  in  their  food,  which  disturbs  their  sleep  of  course.  — 
Observe  that  ^nb  Part,  {labourer)  has  a  different  meaning  from 
nnS/  servant.  —  '^'^''^J*^  with  the  art.,  it  being  abstract.  This  word 
is  in  the  abs.  state,  and  of  course  the  following  noun  is  in  the 
Dat.  of  appurtenance,  having  the  force  or  meaning  of  a  Gen. 
§  113.  2.  The  article  (its  vowel  is  under  h)  is  put  before  a 
whole  class.  —  n'^S'o  Part.  Hiph.  of  the  form  B.  or  No.  II.  (Lex), 
from  n^i ,  concessit.  By  a  little  change  in  the  version  we  can 
imitate  the  Heb.  i^  that  follows,  e.  g.  does  not  afford  leave  or  per- 
mission to  him,  etc.  —  I'i^'^t'j  Inf.  with  h  of  "(d^;  for  the  first 
vowel,  see  §  24.  1.  (^b  for  ^b). 

(12)  There  is  a  grievous  evil  whicli  I  have  seen  under  the  sun,  riches 
kept  to  the  owner's  harm. 

Hitherto,  the  negative  side  of  the  evil  has  been  presented  to 
view.  Now  comes  the  positive  one.  There  is  a  grievous  evil, 
etc.,  excites  attention  in  the  reader  to  a  new  attitude  of  the  thing 
considered.  —  nbin  fem.  Part,  of  J-ibr|,used  adjectively.  —  Be- 
fore '^n'^l<'7  the  pron.  idx  is  implied,  §  121.  3.  —  "'"^brn  with  sing, 
meaning  as  before.  —  '^^^^'^  with  sing.  sufF.  accordingly.  The 
lit.  Heb.  here  runs  thus :  for  its  oivner,  to  his  harm.  I  have 
abbreviated  the  expression  in  my  version.  The  proposition  made 
by  this  verse,  he  now  goes  on  to  illustrate  by  particulars. 

(1.3)  And  those  riches  perish  by  luckless  undertakings;  and  lie  has  be- 
gotten a  son,  and  there  is  nothing  in  his  hand. 

5?'^  ');^p>' ,  lit.  an  affair  of  evil,  wdiich  is  not  limited  to  bad  bar- 


Chap.  V.  14,  15.  189 

gains  only,  but  extends  to  any  unfortunate  occurrences  in  busi- 
ness which  call  for  a  sacrifice  of  property.  —  He  hath  hegotten  a 
son,  viz.  while  he  was  rich.  —  And  there  is  nothing  in  his  hand. 
Whose  hand  ?  Some  say,  the  son's ;  others,  the  father's.  I 
agree  with  the  latter ;  because  the  writer  seems  desirous  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that,  having  begotten  a  son,  he  now  has  nothing  to 
bestow  upon  him.  This  is  a  sore  evil  to  paternal  feeling.  —  '■p^^ 
const,  form  is  connected  with  ircnx^ .  This  last  word  is  com- 
pounded of  n-^^i  rt^  =  quid  quid.  The  negative  'j'l'X  or  i<b  before 
it,  makes  it  mean  nofhing. 

(II)  As  lie  came  forth  from  the  womb  of  his  mother,  naked  shall  he  again 
depart  as  he  came,  and  nothing  shall  he  receive  by  his  toil,  ^vhich  he  may 
carry  away  in  his  hand. 

In  other  words  :  He  shall  go  out  of  the  world  as  he  came  into 
it ;  he  brought  nothing  into  it,  he  shall  carry  nothing  out  of  it.  — 
Ty?y:^, ,  as  pointed,  is  in  Hiph.  Imperf.,  which  means,  among  other 
things,  to  take  ivith  one,  to  carry  away  with  one.  I  take  the 
sense  of  the  passage  to  be  given  in  the  version.  The  Imperf. 
Hiph.  is  from  TyT  •  Hitzig  insists  on  pointing  the  word  Ty?^. 
(Kal.  Imperf.),  and  then  translating  thus :  his  toil,  which  goes 
through  his  hand,  i.  e.  either  which  his  hand  performs,  or  which 
escapes  through  his  hands.  But  I  know  of  no  case  in  Hebrew, 
where  such  a  manner  of  expression  occurs.  Persons  go,  or  cause 
to  go,  not  things.  Nor  can  I  see  any  objection  against  the  meaning 
given  above,  which  is  of  serious  import.  Minutiae  of  manner  in 
coming  and  departing,  are  not  aimed  at.  The  general  and  obvious 
sense  is  given  above.  —  The  verb  nvd^  here  signifies  again,  see 
Lex.  — rs  =  'rrxs ,  as. 

(1.5)  And  this  too  is  a  sore  evil,  that  altogether  as  he  came  so  shall  he 
depart ;  and  what  advantage  is  there  to  him  who  toils  for  the  wind  ? 

This  second  sore  evil  is  not  merely  like  that  just  mentioned, 
viz.,  of  coming  into  the  world  without  anything  and  leaving  it 
without  anything,  but  in  addition  to  this  part  of  troubles  comes 
what  is  mentioned  in  the  next  verse.  Both  vs.  15  and  16  de- 
scribe the  second  sore  evil,  as  cr>  between  them  shows.  —  r53""b3 , 
altogether  as,  like  as,  ti'Z'J  (like  zv  )  is  literally  a  noun,  meaning 
conjunction  or  communion,  root  z.'C'S  .    As  a  prep.,  it  always  takes 


190  Chap.  V.  16. 

this  const,  form.  —  In  5<ad,  the  *idx  ('ij)  is  superfluous  for  us.  Lit. 
the  three  words  mean  altogether  like  that.  —  r^;^  often  means 
depart^  as  here.  —  To  toil  for  the  wind,  is  to  toil  to  no  purpose. 

(16)  Also  he  consumes  all  his  days  in  gloom,  and  is  much  irritated,  and 
his  intirmitics  are  matter  of  indignation. 

^3si"i  {to  eat)  has  often  a  tropical  sense,  as  to  devour,  consume, 
etc.  So  here.  The  literal  meaning  would  only  say,  that  he, 
during  all  his  days,  takes  his  meals  in  a  gloomy  state  of  mind ; 
but  the  tropical  meaning  gives  us  the  idea,  that  all  his  time  is 
spent  in  gloom.  —  So  darkness  is  not  literal  here,  but  has  a  tropi- 
cal sense  =  gloom,  sadness.  —  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  difficult, 
and  has  given  rise  to  a  variety  of  interpretations.  Taking  the 
text  as  it  stands,  t5s'3  is  a  neut.  intrans.  verb,  and  may  be  ren- 
dered passively,  as  above.  —  ^i^^"^  'i'^^'7!'  >  '^^^'^  ^""^  infirmity  is  even 
indignation,  is  the  literal  version.  The  first  part  of  the  verse 
discloses  his  gloomy  state  of  mind ;  the  second,  his  bodily  infirm- 
ities and  their  consequence,  viz.  excitement,  indignation.  I  take 
1  before  the  last  word  to  be  a  note  of  intensity,  §  152.  B.  2. 
Sentiment :  'His  infirmities  excite  him  to  anger  or  strong  indig- 
nation, i.  e.  he  is  impatient  and  frets  while  they  are  upon  him.'  — 
I  have  rendered  i'^bn  by  the  plur.  (infirmities),  because  it  is  an 
abstract  noun  (of  the  Inf.  form,  §  84.  V.),  and  denotes  a  state  or 
condition  of  infirmity;  which  same  thing  is  designated  more 
usually  with  us  by  the  plural,  for  the  sing,  has  respect  commonly 
to  some  specific  malady.  As  to  the  1  before  the  last  noun,  in 
many  cases  it  is  put  before  a  noun  which  makes  an  accession  to 
what  precedes,  in  the  way  of  explanation,  or  of  comparison,  or 
for  the  sake  of  adding  a  stronger  or  more  explicit  word.  Thus 
Zech.  14:  6:  "There  shall  be  no  light,  li^Spl  ni^'i^ ,  coldness, 
even  ice  [shall  there  be  "].  Here,  the  latter  noun  designates  the 
intensity  of  the  cold.  To  translate  ^  in  such  a  case  by  the  simple 
and,  would  make  the  sentiment  tame.  As  rendered  above,  the 
words  convey  the  same  idea  for  substance,  as  very  cold ;  for 
when  ice  is  formed  in  Palestine,  the  sensation  of  cold  is  extreme. 
As  the  words  are  now,  we  have  a  fine  poetic  substitute  for  the 
prosaic  "ik?? ,  very  much.  And  in  such  a  light  I  regard  our  text. 
I  take  the  writer  to  be  showing  the  usual  concomitants,  or  rather 
the  consequences,  of  wealth  which  procures  the  means  of  living 


Chap.  V.  16.  191 

luxuriously.  The  temptation  to  such  living  is  very  great,  and  in 
its  train  it  usually  brings  the  evils  here  mentioned,  viz.  gloom  of 
mind^  irritability,  prolonged  injirmity,  with  impatient  and  angry 
fretting  under  it.  All  this  is,  indeed,  what  the  writer  calls  it  — 
a  sore  evil. 

In  this  way  of  interpretation,  no  change  of  the  text  is  needed. 
Hitzig  thinks  the  text  to  be  so  corrupt,  that  he  ventures  to  re- 
fashion it  thus  :  t'4;p^  1^^!72  ^?'?'T!  ^".r.^  •  H^  then  makes  Drr  the 
Ace.  after b=N"i  implied,  which  must  be  rendered:  devours  via- 
lence ;  and  this  he  explains  or  illustrates  by  a  reference  to 
G"Gn  nrd,  he  drinks  in  violence  (Pro v.  2G:  6),  and  by  the  Latin 
aegritudinem  devorare.  He  might  have  added  to  the  last : 
devorare  molestiam  —  ineptias  —  libidos  —  pecuniam,  etc.  But 
the  Latin  verb  means  both  to  devour,  to  eat  up,  and  also  to  sup- 
press, to  keep  under.  But  the  expression  in  Proverbs  means 
receiving  or  suffering  much  violence  =  drinking  a  large  draught 
of  it.  It  is  possible,  that  Ds*3  brx"i  may  be  construed  in  like  way  ; 
but  it  is  hardly  probable.  There  is  nothing  like  it  elsewhere. 
Devouring  or  destroying  is  the  prominent  tropical  meaning  of  bri<  , 
and  this  would  make  no  sense  in  the  passage  before  us.  Hitzig 
gives  the  verb  the  sense  of  sioallow  down ;  but  that  belongs 
rather  to  inPiL" .  No  analogon,  then,  can  be  found  in  Hebrew,  to 
support  his  view.  As  to  the  verb  Drs ,  it  is  by  no  means  unfre- 
quent ;  and  it  is  employed  here  in  7 :  0.  Hitzig  says,  that  the 
text  as  it  stands  must  refer  the  suff.  in  i"^^?!  to  covetousness  as 
implied  in  the  preceding  context.  But  this  would  be  singular, 
indeed,  to  personify  that  covetousness,  and  then  apply  to  it  the 
word  infirmity.  To  us,  sick  covetousness  soimds  strangely.  What 
need  of  this  ?  The  same  person  who  consumes  his  time  in  gloom, 
who  is  irntated,  i.  e.  the  greedy  and  covetous  man,  is  the  person 
referred  to  by  the  suff.  in  i'^'bri .  Why  perplex  that  which  gives 
a  good  sense  as  it  stands  ?  Indeed,  the  changes  in  the  text 
proposed  by  Hitzig  are  too  numei-ous  to  be  credible  ;  and  clearly 
they  are  unnecessary.  Heiligstedt  pursues  the  same  course, 
without  either  explaining  or  defending  the  necessity  of  it.  Surely, 
it  is  not  a  safe  course  to  pursue,  when  we  not  only  transform 
the  text,  but  also  assign  to  it  a  meaning  new  and  strange.  All 
this  is  easier,  indeed,  than  to  enucleate  the  somewliat  obscure 
declaration  of  Coheleth,  simply  in  the  way  of  grammatico-critical 


192  Chap.  V.  17,  18. 

investigation.  But  after  all,  labour  laid  out  on  artificial  exegesis 
is  an  'J"!  )';^yj  ,  to  say  the  least  of  it.  Seldom,  indeed,  does  Hitzig 
take  such  liberties  ;  and  here  we  may  well  dispense  with  them. 

We  come  now,  after  this  repeated  survey  of  oppression  and 
avarice,  by  placing  them  in  some  new  positions,  to  the  same 
general  conclusion  as  before :  — 

(17)  Lo !  what  I  have  seen  which  is  good,  what  comely ;  to  eat,  and  to  drink, 
and  to  enjoy  good  for  all  one's  toil  which  he  hath  endured  under  the  sun, 
during  the  number  of  the  days  of  his  life  which  God  hath  given  him  ;  for  this 
is  his  portion. 

ids;  may  be  regarded  as  emphatic  here  — '  I,  who  have  so  long 
reflected  on  this  matter,  have  come  to  this  conclusion.'  It  is 
usually  (but  not  always)  emphatic  when  expressed  as  the  subject 
of  a  verb,  §  134.  3.  n.  2.  —  Before  m'::  the  pron.  ""('ri^  seems  to 
be  implied,  with  the  meaning  wJdch  is  ;  for  the  same  is  inserted 
before  ns'^ ,  which  is  in  the  same  predicament.  This  latter  word 
means  comely,  decorous,  etc. ;  i.  e.  enjoying  the  fruit  of  one's  toil 
is  not  only  a  pleasure,  but  one  which  is  becoming  and  proper. — 
The  b  before  the  three  Infinitives  =  ut,  that ;  and  so  we  may 
translate  :  that  one  should  eat,  etc.  Our  simple  to  before  the  Inf. 
answers  the  same  purpose  as  to  meaning. —  See  good;  see 
remarks  on  2:  1. —  2 ,  o?i  account  of,  in  the  sense  o^  for ;  see 
Lex.  3  B.  9.  — ^^r^^J ,  lit.  ivhich  he  toils.  We  can  say  toil  a  toil, 
but  we  do  not.  We  substitute  endure  or  undergo  in  lieu  of  em- 
ploying the  correlative  verb.  —  '^S&'c  const,  and  in  the  Ace.  of 
time.  It  is  only  when  it  is  in  the  Gen.  after  a  noun,  that  it 
means  few. —  Which  God  hath  given  him,  I  must  refer  to  the 
allotted  time  of  man,  and  not  (with  Hitzig)  to  the  enjoyments 
before  named.  —  For  this  is  his  portion,  i.  e.  it  is  good  to  eat,  etc., 
because  this  is  the  portion,  and  our  only  one,  allotted  to  its  hy  God, 
in  order  that  we  might  have  enjoyment.  To  the  same  conclusion 
which  this  verse  expresses,  the  writer  has  repeatedly  come  be- 
fore; see  2:24.    3:  12,  13,  22. 

(18)  Moreover,  as  to  every  man  to  whom  God  hath  given  lidies  and 
wealth,  and  hath  given  him  ]»ower  to  ent  thereof,  and  to  tiike  his  portion,  and 
to  rejoice  in  his  toil —  iiiis  is  the  gift  of  God. 

d'lX-^s  is  Nom.  absolute,  suggesting  the  main  subject  of  the 
sentence,  but  having  no  verb.     I  have  translated  accordingly.  — 


Chap.  V.  19.  193 

Riches  and  wealthy  two  synonymes,  and  therefore  the  meaning  is 
abundant  riches.  —  S::"'Vrn ,  lit.  made  him  to  have  control.  —  ^Vsp2 , 
of  it,  viz.  of  "nrr.  —  nxb  contracted  fem.  Inf.  of  xb3 ,  put  for 
nxb .  —  rn^  contract  of  r.:n'2 ,  from  ",r3 .  —  Jf^n ,  is,  as  often  be- 
fore. He  means  to  say,  that  it  is  a  good  gift,  so  far  as  it  goes. 
He  proceeds  to  assign  a  reason  for  so  saying  :  — 

(19)  For  he  will  not  much  remember  the  days  of  his  life,  when  God  shall 
cause  [things]  to  correspond  with  tlie  joy  of  his  heart. 

3fuch  remember,  etc.,  where  the  days  of  his  life  seems  to  refer 
to  his  past  life,  which  had  so  often  been  checkered  with  sorrow. 
Now,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  special  gift  of  God,  his  reflections 
on  the  sombre  past,  or  on  the  shortness  of  his  days,  will  cease  to 
be  painful  and  disturbing  to  him.  The  reason  is  more  explicitly 
stated  in  the  last  clause.  —  na:?^ ,  Part.  Hiph.,  has  made  not  a 
little  difficulty  here;  but  without  adequate  cause.  T\)'S  is  to  re- 
spond to,  to  chime  with.  Here  the  writer  asserts,  that  God  will 
cause  a  response,  viz.  in  the  things  around  him,  to  the  tone  of  the 
man's  mind  who  is  enjoying.  The  things  are  not  named,  for 
they  are  indefinite  and  unlimited.  All  things  may  be  understood. 
Li  the  version,  I  have  supplied  an  Ace.  In  Hos.  2  :  21,  22,  is  a 
passage  which  well  illustrates  this  :  "  I  will  ansiver  [nrrx ,  the 
same  verb  as  here]  the  heavens,  and  they  shall  answer  the  earth, 
and  the  earth  shall  answer  the  grain  —  etc.,  and  that  shall  answer 
Jezreel ;"  i.  e.  everything  shall  be  ready  and  responsive  to  its 
proi)er  purpose.  So  in  the  verse  before  us :  '  God  will  cause 
everything  to  respond  to  the  joy  fid  state  of  mind  which  follows 
his  gift.  Hope  and  pleasing  anticipation  shall  prevail.'  As  to 
the  phrase  joy  of  heart,  see  it  in  Cant.  3:11.  Jer.  15  :  16.  Is. 
30  :  29,  comp.  Ps.  21  :  3.  In  this  way,  no  change  in  the  text  is 
needed. 

It  is  needless  to  repeat  here,  what  has  been  already  said  (on 
2  :  3,  24)  concerning  the  prudent  and  cautious  indulgence  which 
wisdom  demands.  Coheleth  is  no  Epicure.  Specially  is  he  re- 
mote from  Epicurism,  as  it  concerns  the  acknowledgment  of  a 
God,  and  gratitude  to  him  for  his  blessings.  Most  earthly  pleas- 
ures he  finds  at  last  to  be  altogether  empty  and  vain ;  but  the 
enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  one's  industry,  he  repeatedly  declares^ 
is  a  good,  and  the  only  good  that  promises  much,,  while  even  this 
17 


194  Chap.  YL  1. 

is  short-lived  and  transitory.  But  wliatever  there  is  in  it  of 
satisfaction,  this  is  God's  gift,  and  not  procured  by  ourselves.  A 
deep  and  reverential  feeling  toward  God  must  have  prompted 
such  a  sentiment,  in  such  a  connection.  Providence  is  not  taxed 
with  injustice,  nor  is  unbelief  in  it  excited,  on  account  of  the 
apparently  undistinguishing  distribution  of  good  and  evil  in  the 
\Yorld,  or  because  of  the  untoward  events  of  life.  All  good  comes 
from  God,  and  demands  thankful  acknowledgment.  Suffering 
and  sorrow,  when  they  come  on  all  alike,  are  mysteries  not  to  be 
explained,  but  not  things  which  give  us  any  right  to  complain. 
It  would  seem  that  the  writer  had  drunk  deep  of  the  spirit  of  the 
book  of  Job,  and  perhaps  it  is  probable  that  he  lived  near  the 
time  when  that  book  was  written.  We  shall  see  that  he  quotes 
or  alludes  to  it  in  the  sequel. 


§  10.  Disappointments  frequeni,  in  respect  to  attainable  good ; 
they  come  upon  the  wise  and  the  foolish  both,  and  none  can  control 
divine  arrangements. 

Chap.  VI.  1—12. 


[The  declarations  in  5:17 — 19,  respecting  our  liighest  attainable  earthly 
good,  give  occasion  to  further  consideration  of  the  subject.  There  are  men 
who  lose  this  good.  Their  lot  is  an  unhappy  one.  It  would  be  better,  had 
they  never  been  born.  And  even  if  one  lives  to  old  age,  he  must  at  last  die 
like  others.  All  toil  is  for  sustenance,  and  yet  the  appetite  is  never  satisfied. 
Both  the  wise  and  foolish  are  subjected  to  the  same  law  of  never-satisfied- 
craving.  Experience  of  enjoyment  would  be  better  than  the  wanderings  of 
desire;  but  the  order  of  Providence  cannot  be  changed,  which  has  definitely 
fixed  and  limited  circling  events.  Who,  then,  can  point  out  any  stable  good 
for  man,  in  days  yet  future  ?] 

(1)  There  is  an  evil  which  I  have  seen  under  the  sun,  and  heavily  docs  it 
lie  upon  man. 

ns*! ,  lit.  great,  much,  but  connected  as  it  here  is  with  ^^  (upon), 
the  indication  is  that  it  bears  heavily  on  him,  i.  e.  so  as  to  grieve 
or  oppress  him.  h'$  often  indicates  upon  in  the  sense  of  a  burden, 
a  grievance;  §  151.  3.  b.  The  transition  by  d^  at  the  outset, 
marks  an  advance  to  a  new  phase  of  the  subject. 


Chap.  VL  2,  3.  195 

(2)  There  is  a  man  to  whom  God  hath  given  riches  and  wealth  and 
si)!endor,  and  he  hicketh  nothing  for  his  soul  of  all  which  he  desireth,  and 
yet  God  hath  not  given  him  power  to  eat  thereof,  but  a  stranger  eateth  it; 
this  is  vanity,  yea,  a  grievous  malady  is  it. 

Riches  and  wealth,  i.  e.  great  riches,  as  in  5  :  18. — ^in3  may 
mean  either  the  splendour  connected  with  wealth,  or  the  honour  of 
elevated  rank.  The  former  seems  more  congruous  here.  —  "iDH 
Part,  of  a  verb  final  Tseri,  §  49.  2.  a.  —  VJDD  means  the  physical 
animal  man,  with  his  appetites  and  desires.  —  b's^a ,  the  59  being 
connected  with  "nDn  and  naturally  following  it,  "{q  =  part,  portion. 
—  Hfii^n';' ,  reg.  Ilithp.,  with  l  consonant  in  the  root  —  ^S^"a  ,  of  it, 
viz.  of  his  wealth  which  he  has  acquired.  —  A  stranger  eateth  it, 
i.  e.  his  unknown  heir;  see  2  :  18.  —  The  case  of  the  man  here 
presented  is  different  from  that  in  5  :  12,  13  (Eng.  13,  14),  inas- 
much as  he  keeps  in  possession  of  his  property  through  life,  but 
has  no  disposition  to  enjoy  it,  while  the  man  described  in  5:12 
seq.  loses  his  estate.  But  even  the  power  of  enjoyment  depends 
on  God  —  God  hath  not  given  to  him,  etc. 

(3)  If  a  man  beget  a  hundred  [children],  and  live  many  years,  and  the 
days  of  his  years,  that  are  to  come  are  multiplied,  and  his  soul  is  not  satisfied 
with  good,  and  moreover  there  is  no  burial  to  him,  I  say :  Better  than  he  is 
an  untimely  birth. 

The  word  heget  carries  with  it  of  course  the  implication  of 
children,  which  I  have  supplied  in  the  version  ;  see  the  like  ellip- 
sis in  1  Sam.  2  :  5.  Jer.  15  :  9,  al.  —  U^TJ  fem.  with  masc.  form, 
as  nin'n  shows.  —  n  j^  appears  to  be  a  verb  here  (root  ^5'^),  for 
if  it  were  an  adjective,  the  plur.  D"'2'n  would  be  necessary  in 
order  to  agree  with  i?:^ ,  days.  The  Heb.  cannot  be  closely  fol- 
lowed in  the  translation,  as  to  its  order ;  but  the  sense  of  the 
clause  is  presented  in  the  version  above.  :an  is  an  impersonal 
verb  here,  and  the  clause  lit.  rendered  would  run  thus :  And  if 
there  he  much  which  shall  be  the  days  of  his  years. 

Two  circumstances  of  his  misery  are  developed ;  first,  his  soul 
is  not  satisfied  with  his  portion,  because  God  has  not  given  to 
him  power  to  be  satisfied,  (v.  2) ;  and  secondly,  he  dies  without 
the  honours  of  a  burial.  The  fact  that  he  was  too  covetous  to 
appropriate  his  wealth  to  his  own  enjoyment,  renders  it  probable 
that  he  makes  no  provision  for  an  honourable  or  expensive  fune- 
ral or  monument,  such  as  becomes  his  rank.  His  heir,  if  a  stranger 
(as  he  is  named  in  v.  2),  would  not  be  anxious  to  do  at  his  own 


196  Chap.  VI.  3. 

expense,  what  he  had  left  unprovided  for.  We  are  not,  however, 
to  take  rr'i^np  in  the  sense  of  mere  sepulture,  (for  no  man  would 
be  left  unburied,  in  the  midst  of  society  and  in  a  time  of  peace), 
but  in  that  of  sepulchre  (Gen.  35 :  20.  47  :  30),  a  costly  structure 
which  the  raiser  was  not  willing  to  erect  in  his  lifetime,  and 
which  his  heir  will  not  now  erect ;  or  else  in  that  of  funeral,  i.  e. 
burial  with  customary  and  expensive  ceremonies.  The  meaning 
of  sepulchre  is  rather  preferable,  because  this  is  an  enduring 
monument  of  the  man,  who  is  laid  in  it  and  has  his  name  inscrib- 
ed on  it.  To  leave  the  dead  unburied  is  a  disgrace  inflicted  only 
by  the  most  hostile  enemy;  see  in  Is.  14:  18,  19.  For  disgrace- 
ful burial  without  expense,  see  Jer.  22:  18,  19.  The  feelings  of 
the  Hebrews  in  respect  to  the  decorum  of  burial,  are  well  devel- 
oped in  Gen.  23  :  3 — 13.  In  Coheleth's  view,  that  man's  lot  is 
sorely  grievous,  who  is  very  rich  and  yet  so  miserly  as  to  dis- 
pense with  the  comforts  of  life  for  himself,  and  who  dies  un- 
noticed, and  unhonoured  by  a  sepulchre  befitting  his  condition. 
Putting  these  both  together,  he  makes  out  of  the  case  something 
which  is  very  revolting  and  odious.  "  Better,"  he  exclaims,  "  is 
an  untimely  birth,  than  such  a  person."  The  reason  of  this  de- 
claration is  given  more  fully  in  the  sequel. 

Hitzig  finds  great  difficulty  in  this  verse,  and  thinks  it  partly 
spurious.  The  clause  about  burial,  he  thinks,  has  a  wrong  loca- 
tion, and  should  be  put  before  "iUJSS,  with  the  omission  of  xb. 
The  clause  would  then  run  thus  :  "  And  moreover  should  be 
buried,  and  his  soul  not  be  satisfied  with  good,"  etc.  From  a 
strange  hand  he  thinks  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  as  it  now  is, 
must  have  come,  and  that  it  should  be  stricken  out.  But  what  is 
there  strange  or  incongruous  in  the  preceding  view  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  verse  ?  He  represents  the  words  of  Coheleth,  now  in 
the  text,  as  comprising  or  implying  the  sentiment,  that  if  the 
circumstance  of  being  unburied  were  omitted,  then  the  case  of 
the  miser  would  be  better  than  that  of  the  untimely  birth.  But 
on  this,  as  it  seems  to  me,  he  lays  more  stress  than  the  writer 
intended.  His  renunciation  of  comforts  through  life,  and  then 
his  death  unmourned  and  as  it  were  unnoticed,  are  both  combined 
in  the  writer's  mind,  while  the  latter  is  only  the  climax  of  the 
former.  That  the  poor  and  friendless  should  die  unnoticed  and 
unlionored,  would  be  nothing  strange  in  such  a  world  as  this ; 


Chap.  VI.  4— G.  197 

but  when  the  honours  of  a  tomb  or  a  funeral  are  withheld  from  a 
rich  man,  his  case  must  be  grievous  in  the  view  of  the  pubhc, 
and  one  which  shocks  the  common  sensibility.  Other  commen- 
tators have  not  found,  and  none  need  to  find,  such  ditHculties  as 
Ilitzig ;  and  his  allegations  seem  hardly  to  justify  a  charge  of 
surreptitious  addition  to  the  text,  or  a  violent  dislocation  of  it. 

(4)  For  it  Cometh  in  nothingness,  and  it  dcpartcth  in  darkness,  and  in 
darkness  is  its  name  concealed. 

Li  nothingness,  bzri^ ,  i.  e.  it  has  no  real  life,  no  proper  existence 
as  a  human  being,  or  none  to  any  purpose.  —  In  darkness  it  depart- 
eth,  i.  e.  it  perishes  unseen,  before  it  sees  the  light.  It  does  not 
even  obtain  a  name  =  a  remembrance.  There  is  nothing  to  call 
or  remember  it  by.  For  the  article  before  bnn  as  abstract,  see 
§  107.  3.  n.  3.  c. ;  before  "rin  the  article  stands  also,  because  it  is 
either  a  kind  of  abstract,  or  the  name  of  a  special  substance  so 
considered,  ib.  h. 


(5)  Moreover,  it  hath  not  seen  the  sun,  nor  had  any  knowledge ;  quiet  hath 
this  rather  than  that. 

Hitzig  translates  :  It  hath  not  seen  and  hath  not  known  the  sun  ; 
and  this  may  be  done,  as  the  Hebrew  stands.  But  I  apprehend 
that  this  version  falls  short  of  the  writer's  meaning.  It  hath  not 
seen  the  sun,  alludes  to  its  death  before  its  birth ;  while  ^'y^  &<b'i 
goes  further,  and  declares  that  it  has  not  had  any  kind  of  knowl- 
edge. This  verb  not  unfrequently  is  used  as  intransitive,  i.  e. 
without  an  object  after  it,  and  so  means  to  possess  cog7iition  or 
knowledge.  This  surely  makes  the  text  more  significant.  —  Quiet 
has  this,  viz.  this  untimely  birth,  which  so  prematurely  perishes, 
rather  than  that,  viz.  the  miserly  man  without  a  sepulchre.  Not 
more  quiet  after  both  are  dead,  for  then  the  case  is  the  same 
with  both ;  but  quiet  on  the  whole  ;  quiet  considered  in  opposition 
to  the  turmoil  and  vexation  of  the  rich  man.  Quiet  is  a  thing 
which  stands  high  on  the  list  of  Oriental  enjoyments,  and  is  re- 
garded as  a  matter  of  eager  desire.  The  rest  in  heaven,  and  in 
the  land  o2  Canaan,  borrows  a  part  of  its  intense  significancy 
from  this  circumstance. 

(6)  And  even  if  he  live  a  thousand  years  twice  told,  and  enjoy  no  good  — 
do  not  all  go  to  the  same  place  1 

17* 


198  Chap.  VI.  7. 

!lb^t ,  contraction  of  ^ib  ex ,  both  of  which  mean  if.  In  this  case 
of  highest  doubt  as  to  the  possibility  that  the  case  stated  sliould 
be  realized,  the  double  if  makes  the  expression  very  congruous. 
"We  may  translate  by  even  if  The  l  before  the  particle  has  an 
influence  on  the  following  n;^n ,  and  makes  an  Imperf.  or  Fut. 
sense.  —  ^^'OV'B  ,  dual,  two  times,  used  adverbially,  like  our  tivice. 
—  &<brt  with  r:  interrog. —  One  place,  viz.  Sheol,  the  grave.  —  bsri 
the  whole  mass,  the  totality,  and  therefore  it  takes  the  article,  §  107. 
3.  n.  1.  b.  —  T\P.'^^,  depart,  go  away,  as  very  often  in  this  book. — 
The  question  here  asked  is  easily  understood.  Instead  of  say- 
ing, in  case  a  man  should  live  two  thousand  years  and  enjoy  no 
good,  then  all  would  be  vanity  and  fruitless  effort,  he  asks  a  ques- 
tion which  places  this  sentiment  in  a  very  strong  light ;  for  it 
virtually  means :  '  Live  he  ever  so  long,  yet  he  goes  at  last  to 
the  same  place  as  the  untimely  birth,  i.  e.  to  the  region  of  the 
dead ;'  so  that  "  one  destiny  equally  awaits  all,"  without  distinc- 
tion, 3:19.  In  fact,  the  question  in  reality  asserts  in  the  strong- 
est manner,  that  all  will  go  to  one  and  the  same  place.  In  9  :  4 
and  11:7,  our  author  speaks  of  the  high  value  to  be  set  upon 
life,  and  the  pleasure  derived  from  beholding  the  light.  But  in 
these  passages  a  contrast  is  made  with  death,  and  the  latter  is 
rendered  the  more  bitter  because  it  cuts  us  off  from  enjoyment. 
But  in  the  text  before  us,  life  is  not  asserted  to  be  of  no  value, 
but  the  gist  of  the  assertion  is,  that,  be  it  ever  so  long,  it  saves  us 
not  from  going  to  the  same  place  where  an  untimely  birth  has 
gone,  i.  e.  the  grave.  In  itself,  the  enjoyment  of  what  one  has 
acquired  is  a  good  which  is  desirable ;  but  the  time  is  at  hand 
when  this  enjoyment  will  le  r.o  more,  and  our  condition  will  then 
be  the  more  annoying,  because  of  what  we  have  lost.  Such  is 
the  course  of  thought  here. 

(7)  All  the  toil  of  man  is  for  his  mouth,  and  yet  the  soul  is  not  satisfied. 

This  connects  with  the  preceding  context.  There  it  is  de- 
clared, that  however  long  life  may  be,  yet  at  last  it  comes  to 
vanity.  All  must  go  down  to  the  grave.  Long  life,  therefore,  will 
not  secure  a  permanent  good.  All  the  toil  of  man  can  do  no  more 
than  procure  the  means  of  eating  and  drinking  —  it  is  all  for  his 
mouth,  i.  e.  all  which  promises  enjoyment.  But  even  here  our 
hopes  are  in  a  measure  dashed.     The  author  has  too  often  else- 


Chap.  VI.  8,  9.  199 

where  commended  eating  and  drinking,  i.  e.  the  enjoyment  of  the 
fruits  of  toil,  (see  in  2:  24.  3:  13.  5:  17.  8:  15),  wholly  to 
decry  it  here.  But  even  the  privilege  of  this  enjoyment  has  its 
drawbacks.  The  appetite,  (ilJssn ,  the  animal  soul),  is  never  satis- 
fied so  that  it  does  not  return.  The  same  want  and  necessity 
press  us  again,  which  we  felt  before  eating  and  drinking.  Stable, 
abiding  good,  then,  is  not  to  be  looked  for  even  here.  Too  much 
must  not  be  expected  from  this  source.  —  Da  here  means  i/et, 
tamen ;  see  Lex.  c?*.  No.  5. 

(8)  Then  what  advantage  is  there  to  the  wise  man  over  the  fool,  and 
what  to  the  poor  man  who  knoweth  how  to  walk  before  tlie  living  ? 

13  is  variously  rendered ;  Knobel :  dock,  still ;  Heigligs. :  immo^ 
tamen;  neither  congruously.  It  is  the  "^3  apodotic,  i.  e.  such 
as  is  employed  in  sentences  of  this  nature  :  If —  so  and  so ;  then 
(''3  )  this  or  that  is  the  consequence.  I  understand  the  question 
here  to  be  a  kind  of  apodosis  to  the  preceding  verse.  TJie  appe- 
tite is  not  satisfied ; — then  (asks  the  inquirer)  how  do  the  wise 
have  any  more  advantage  than  fools,  for  both  have  the  same 
appetite  ?  The  last  part  of  the  verse  merely  sets  the  tan  in  a 
special  light.  He  is  regarded  as  being  an  ^3^ ,  a  poor  man,  but 
dexterously  conducting  himself.  To  walk  before  the  living,  is  to 
behave  with  propriety  and  discretion  before  men.  "  Enoch 
walked  with  God,"  Gen.  5  :  24 ;  "I  am  God  .  .  .  walk  before  me, 
and  be  thou  perfect,"  Gen.  17  :  1.  —  ^'^'i'')  as  agreeing  with  ''rrri 
(having  the  art.)  we  might  expect  would  also  have  the  article- 
pronoun  -n  ;  but  the  Part,  of  itself  contains  or  implies  the  pro- 
noun (§  131.  2.  n.  2),  and  the  repetition  of  it  is  not  necessary. 
In  Greek,  it  is  much  ofi.  er  omitted  in  iL^  Part,  than  in  adjec- 
tives. —  Difn  is  used  in  this  book  frequently  to  designate  men  on 
the  stage  of  action.  Only  such  can  witness  one's  demeanor. 
Sentiment :  '  If  what  you  have  said  about  desire  never  satisfied 
be  true,  what  advantage  is  there  in  superiority  of  knowledge,  or 
in  sagacious  correctness  of  demeanor  ? '  This  question  is  not 
directly  and  explicitly  answered  here.  It  has  already  been 
answered  in  one  respect,  in  2  :  14  — 16.  But  the  following  verse 
suggests  a  species  of  answer :  — 

'(9)  The  sight  of  the  eyes  is  better  than  the  wandering  of  desire;  this  too 
is  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 


200  Chap.  VI.  10. 

To  see  good  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  usual  expression  in  this 
book  for  the  enjoyment  of  it.  It  is  that  same  seeing  which  is 
here  designated.  As  the  noun  is  used  {sight),  the  organ  is  here 
named  at  the  same  time  on  which  it  depends  ;  but  this  changes 
not  the  essential  meaning  of  the  phrase.  The  mere  natural  see- 
ing of  objects  is  not  meant,  but  the  word  is  employed  in  its  tropi- 
cal sense.  —  The  wandering  of  desire,  in  the  Heb.  tj^n^  is  Inf. 
with  short  o  because  of  the  Maqqeph  that  follows  ;  the  ^  is  the 
sign  of  the  comparative  after  nii: .  The  verb  "r^y^  means  to  go  in 
any  direction,  to  progress  :  and  here  it  designates  the  Jiuctuating 
or  going  forth  of  desire  from  one  thing  to  another,  or  the  con- 
tinual motion  of  it.  In  other  words,  Coheleth  concedes  the  evil 
of  desiring  continually,  and  says  that  it  is  vanity  and  fruitless 
effort ;  but  still,  he  maintains  that  there  is  some  good  in  present 
enjoyment.  —  The  nt  refers  to  the  ;!JS3-T(^li'5 .  The  use  of  Tib^^ 
in  the  preceding  verse,  probably  occasioned  the  employment  of 
the  same  word  here.  But  it  is  in  the  way  of  paronomasia,  the 
meanings  in  the  two  cases  being  quite  different. 

The  writer  betakes  himself  once  more  to  his  usual  resort, 
when  evils  come  up  that  cannot  be  shunned.  Providence,  says 
he,  has  arranged  all  these  matters.  There  is  an  established  order 
and  succession  of  things,  and  it  is  of  no  avail  to  quarrel  with  it. 
Man  cannot  strive  with  his  Maker. 

(10)  That  which  is,  was  long  ago  called  by  name,  and  it  was  known,  be- 
cause he  is  man,  that  he  is  unable  to  contend  with  him  who  is  stronger 
than  he. 

The  Perf.  n^n  is  here  used  as  an  abstract  Pres.,  including 
what  loas  and  still  is,  §  124.  3.  —  Its  name  ivas  called,  i.  e.  it 
had  a  name,  and  therefore  an  existence,  long  ago.  —  ^dx  ,  because, 
or  since,  introduces  a  circumstance  which  serves  to  explain  the 
inability  that  is  asserted  in  the  sequel.  —  &5^M ,  he  is,  as  often  else- 
where. —  Man,  i.  e.  a  frail  and  dying  creature,  springing  from 
the  dust,  and  returning  to  the  dust.  —  b^^i'^-J^^I  connects  with 
S5Ti3,  it  was  known  .  .  .  that  he  will  be  unable,  §  152.  B.  e. — 
fj'i^rnnq  is  said,  by  the  Masoretic  note  in  the  margin,  to  have  a 
superfluous  t\ ,  and  accordingly  it  has  no  vowel-point  assigned  to 
it.  But  there  is  no  need  of  this  criticism.  It  may  be  read  aijd 
pointed  wj^i^nnd ,  i.  e.  him  who  is  the  mighty  One,  the  Almighty, 


Chap.  VI.  11,  12.  201 

of  course  with  the  article.  This  is  the  very  idea  that  the  writer 
meant  to  convey,  but  which  the  Punctators  failed  to  discover.  — 
p,  him  who.  —  '^l'2'3  =  ^T^j'Si-o  ,  than  hivi,  not  them  us.  Here  the 
sentiment  comes  out  fully,  that  striving  against  the  arrangements 
of  Providence  can  be  of  no  avail.  The  presinnption  of  so  doing 
is  also  implied. 

(11)  Truly,  there  are  many  words  increasing  vanity ;  what  advantage  is 
there  to  man  ? 

■^S  here  is  clearly  not  causal^  but  intensive,  and  so  I  have  translated 
it.  It  might  be  Avell  rendered  by  however,  and  then  the  shape  of 
the  discourse  would  be  thus  :  '  However,  I  will  say  no  more,  since 
much  speaking  has  already  been  condemned ; '  see  5  :  6,  and 
remarks  on  4 :  16.  —  D'^^'^.-a  ,  Hiph.  Part,  of  ns'n  .  —  What  advan- 
tage to  man  ?  i.  e.  no  number  of  words,  however  great,  can  dis- 
close a  permanent  and  immutable  good  for  him,  in  the  present 
world.     Words,  therefore,  are  multiplied  in  vain. 

(12)  For  who  knoweth  what  is  good  for  man  in  life,  during  the  number  of 
the  days  of  his  vain  life,  since  he  spends  them  as  a  shadow ;  so  that  who  can 
tell  man  what  shall  be  after  him  under  the  sun  1 

The  "13  at  the  beginning  may  be  rendered  for  (causal),  and 
then  its  connection  stands  thus  :  '  What  advantage  is  there  to  man  ? 
[I  ask  this  question]  because  (^3  )  who  knoweth,'  etc.,  i.  e.  '  be- 
cause no  one  can  know  and  tell.  No  one  can  point  out  any 
stable  good,  not  even  in  tXm  future  ;  for  who  knoweth  the  future  ? ' 

—  In  life,  i.  e.  while  a  man  is  living. —  *,5p?2  is  Ace.  of  measure 
or  time,  and  needs  no  prep,  or  verb.  The  indication  is  that  of 
a  definite  number  told  or  appointed.  —  ibnn  ^jn ,  his  vain  life 
(§  104.  1),  i.  e.  life  which  yields  no  solid  good.  —  Db?.:]T ,  since 
he  spends,  or  with  1  intensive :  he  even  spends  them.  That  nrs 
may  mean  the  same  as  Ttomv  iqovov,  to  spend  time,  is  plain  from 
Lex.  2.  g.  This  usage  is  even  somewhat  frequent.  The  suff. 
them  refers  to  the  preceding  days.  —  bsts  as  a  shadow,  for  the  arti- 
cle here,  sec  §  107.  3.  n.  1.  a.  It  is  inadmissible,  however,  in 
such  a  case,  in  our  language.  The  idea  is,  that  the  days  of  man 
pass  quickly  or  swiftly  away,  as  a  shadow  does,  (comp.  8:13. 
Job  14:2);  they  are  continually  on  the  move  and  soon  vanish. 

—  Trx ,  here   (as  often)  is  like  "^3 ,  so  that,  see  Lex.  "irx  ;  No. 


202  Remarks  on  Chap.  VL 

10.  —  Who  can  tell,  etc.,  i.  e.  his  days  are  so  fleeting  and  short, 
that  no  one  can  gain  a  knowledge  which  will  enable  him  to  see 
and  foretell  future  things.  —  I'^'^nx  may  be  rendered  aftei^  him,  or 
after  it,  viz.  the  mimber  of  his  days.  What  is  beyond,  is  un- 
known to  all ;  so  that  the  question  :  What  advantage  is  there  for 
man'^  (in  v.  11)  must  remain  without  any  answer  which  is 
wholly  satisfactory. 


[In  such  a  state  of  mind  as  is  here  described,  it  seems  strange  to  us,  that 
the  inquirer  did  not  look  beyond  those  dark  and  gloomy  scenes  around  him. 
How  spontaneously  Avould  the  Christian,  in  like  circumstances,  now  look,  by 
faith,  beyond  the  veil  of  time,  to  that  blessed  world  where  all  is  peace  and  joy, 
and  where  is  no  vanity  nor  vexation,  where  "  there  shall  be  no  more  pain, 
and  no  more  death  !"  The  circumstance  above  adverted  to  is,  of  itself,  a  very 
significant  commentary  on  the  declaration  of  Paul,  that  '' the  gospel  has  hrotight 
life  and  immortality  to  lights  Surely,  if  Coheleth  enjoyed  the  full  vision  of  this 
immortality  which  Christians  now  enjoy,  he  must  have  spontaneously  looked 
for  the  adjustment,  in  another  world,  of  all  the  seeming  difficulties  and  con- 
tradictions and  mysteries  that  are  apparent  in  this  world.  Everywhere  does 
Paul  rise  superior  to  his  sorrows,  when  he  directs  his  eye  to  the  glories  of  the 
upper  world.  His  afflictions  are  "  light,"  his  sufferings  '•  only  for  a  moment," 
when  he  is  anticipating  "  the  glory  that  is  to  be  revealed."  And  so,  we  are 
ready  to  say,  must  Coheleth  have  felt  and  acted,  had  he  cherished  such  a 
strong  belief  as  Paul's.  But  are  we  not  somewhat  hasty  in  reasoning  thus 
from  the  one  case  to  the  other  ?  When  one  sees  as  clearly  as  Paul  did,  he 
may  well  exult  in  hope,  and  forget  all  his  sorrows.  But  suppose  that  instead 
of  noon-day,  it  is  only  twilight  by  which  he  is  surrounded.  Can  the  same  ani- 
mation and  hope  be  expected  from  one  whose  lot  it  is  to  live  under  the  latter, 
as  from  one  who  looks  on  the  meridian  sun  ?  It  must  be  a  rare  case,  if  indeed 
there  be  any  such,  when  those  who  grope  their  way  by  the  glimmerings  of  twi- 
light, yet  move  as  rapidly  and  cheerfully  as  those  who  travel  by  broad  day  iuht. 

But  at  all  events,  Coheleth  does  not  stand  alone.  Where,  we  ask  again,  is 
the  appeal,  in  the  book  of  Job,  to  a  future  adjustment  of  all  the  difficulties 
and  troubles  that  assailed  him  ?  Read  Job  14 :  7 — 14,  and  then  say,  whether 
the  patriarch  felt  as  Paul  did  when  he  was  suffering ;  e.  g.  as  described  in 
2  Cor.  iv,  V.  The  celebrated  passage  in  Job  19  :  25— 27,  will  hardly  stand  the 
test  of  criticism,  if  brought  to  support  such  an  appeal.  And  in  all  the  laws  of  the 
great  Jewish  legislator,  where  is  the  appeal  to  a  future  judgment,  a  heaven, 
and  a  hell  ?  The  Hebrews  had  not  even  a  word  in  their  language,  at  least  as 
known  to  us,  which  corresponded  to  the  Gehenna  of  the  N.  Testament.  ?ii<T23 
is  cither  grave,  sepulchre,  or  else  uwldofthe  dead,  region  of  death  (as  in  Is.  xiv), 
but  never  Gehenna.  The  future  judgment  I  have  already  discussed,  under  3: 
17  above.  If  at  all  taught,  it  is  mostly  by  iniplicatlon  ;  and  by  that  very  sel- 
dom. Read  through  all  the  prophets,  i.  e.  the  preachers  to  the  Hebrews. 
Promises  of  reward,  and  threats  of  punishment,  are  everywhere  abundant; 


Remarks  on  Chap.  VI.  203 

but  where,  except  in  Is.  26 :  19  and  Dan,  12:  3,  is  there  anything  wliich  is 
patent  respecting  the  future  state  ?  Many  are  the  promises  and  threats  in  the 
Psalms  and  Proverbs ;  but  where,  excepting  in  Ps.  16:11  and  17  :  15,  is  there 
anything  which  necessarily  respects  the/»/?/re  Avorld  ?  We  bring  it  out,  indeed, 
from  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  by  transferring  our  N.  Test,  ideas  to  the  exegesis 
of  the  0.  Test. ;  but  did  the  Jeics  of  old  so  construe  their  Scriptures  ?  To  say 
this,  would  he  attributing  to  them  more  than  Paul  is  willing  to  allow.  2  Tim. 
1: 10,  and  more  than  John  would  be  willing  to  concede,  John  1:  17,  18.  The 
simple  truth  is,  that  we  must  come  at  last,  in  the  way  of  exegesis,  to  the  con- 
cession, that  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was.only  p-e;w;rato?-^  to  the  gospel ;  it 
was  "only  the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come."  There  was  enough  in  it  to 
encourage  the  obedient,  and  to  lead  to  faith  and  trust  in  God.  And  in  the  case 
of  Coheleth,  the  latter  part  of  his  book  shows,  that  he  attained,  at  last,  to  a 
steadfast  condition  of  mind,  and  that  all  his  inquiries  terminated  in  leadinghim 
to  a  belief  in  a  future  judgment,  and  to  a  deep  conviction  that,  to  "  fear  God, 
and  keep  his  commandments."  is  the  great  end  of  man's  being,  Ecc.  12:  13, 
14.  Through  how  many  doubts  and  difficulties  he  had  to  pass,  with  his  busy 
and  inquiring  spirit,  the  book  before  us  shows.  But  let  us  not  understand  him 
as  having  come  to  a  real  ultimatum^  before  he  gets  through  the  contest  Avith 
his  doubts  and  difficulties.  AVe  have,  specially  in  the  chapter  above  considered, 
a  despairing  and  hesitating  frame  of  mind  ;  a  state  which  bounded  his  circle 
of  vision  by  narrow  limits,  for  the  time  being ;  one  which  made  life  a  burden 
to  him  ;  one  from  which  he  found  no  escape,  and  for  which  he  could  find  no 
substantial  alleviation,  but  in  the  unquestioned  and  unquestionable  supremacy 
of  the  Divine  Being.  This  he  never  denies ;  of  this  he  never  doubts  ;  and  it 
adds  greatly  to  our  regard  for  his  piety  to  find  him,  in  the  midst  of  such  strong 
temptations  to  unbelief  and  murmuring,  always  approaching  God  with  the 
highest  solemnity  and  reverence,  and  not  unfrequently  with  gratitude.  What- 
ever is  wrong  in  men,  and  however  much  of  evil  is  done,  he  still  believes,  that 
"  God  made  man  upright,"  while  "  the  evil  inventions"  are  his  OAvn.  Must 
it  not  be  conceded,  then,  that  there  was  in  him  a  strong  and  active  principle 
of  living  faith,  which  could  support  him  amid  such  trials  and  such  inquiries, 
and  keep  him  steadfast  in  the  attitude  of  reverence  and  submission  ?  It  would 
really  seem,  after  all,  that  while  he  had  far  less  lifjht  than  we  have,  he  had 
more  oi filial  reverence  and  submission  than  most  of  us  would  venture  to  claim. 
As  for  his  doubts  and  perplexities,  and  occasionally  even  his  despair,  who  can 
wonder  at  them,  that  contemplates  him  struggling  on  his  way,  by  twilight, 
and  anxiously  seeking  how  to  solve  all  the  mysterious  occurrences  in  the 
natural  and  moral  world,  in  the  manner  of  a  reasoning  philosopher?  Who 
can  help  feeling  the  deepest  interest  in  the  struggles  of  such  an  inquiring, 
sensitive,  and  anxious  man.  He  does,  indeed,  at  times,  seem  to  succumb,  and 
to  wisli  for  dealh.  So  did  Job  ;  and  so  did  Jonah.  But  after  all,  the  tenor 
of  his  book  is  far  from  inculcating  gloom  and  reckless  despair.  Cheerfulness 
and  sober  enjoyment  are  cveryAvhere  commended,  when  he  comes  to  advise 
and  to  give  precepts.  All  impiety,  lightmindedness,  murmuring,  and  distrust 
of  God's  justice  or  goodness,  arc  discarded  by  him  and  condemned,  even  in 
the  midst  of  all  the  temptations  to  indulge  such  feelings,  while  one  is  under 


204  Remarks  on  Chap.  VI. 

hopeless  siifferinf!:.  unrler  an  oppressive  government,  and  has  onlj  glimj^ses  of 
the  world  of  future  haj>piness.  To  any  one  who  reads  the  book  intelligeiit  y, 
who  looks  at  the  condition,  and  sees  the  design  of  the  writer,  such  a  struggle 
in  regard  to  the  most  interesting  question  man  can  ask  :  viz.  How  can  Ijind 
true  and  lasling  hajipinrss  ?  —  to  such  an  one  a  picture  is  presented,  to  be  con- 
templated with  the  most  lively  emotions.  It  is  only  when  we  mistake  the 
tenor  and  object  of  the  book,  and  look  for  and  demand  that  which  is  not  in  it, 
nor  in  any  other  book  of  the  O.Test,  (except  as  stated  above), —  it  is  only  then, 
that  we  meet  with  insoluble  dithculties  at  every  turn.  Many  persons  resort  to 
downright  violence  upon  the  simple  meaning  of  the  language,  in  order  to  make 
all  parts  of  the  book  speak  orthodoxy.  But  this  can  never  satisfy  the  mind, 
although  it  may,  perhaps,  silence  its  inquiries.  Many  there  are,  who  do  this 
with  honest  and  commendable  intentions,  because  a  better  way  has  not  been 
disclosed  to  them,  or  found  by  them.  But  no  one  who  gets  an  enlightened 
view  of  the  whole  book,  can  feel  that  a  straight-going  exegesis  will  endanger 
our  faith.  Quite  the  contrary.  We  are  led  to  see,  step  by  step,  what  the 
mind  can  struggle  with  and  overcome,  where  there  is  an  unshaken  confidence 
in  God  at  the  bottom  of  the  heart.  If  one  in  ages  past,  before  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness  arose  in  his  full  splendor,  could  thus  struggle,  and  thus  triumph, 
shame  and  reproach  to  us,  who  live  under  the  full  blaze  of  gospel  light,  f  we 
doubt,  and  grow  cold,  and  murmur,  when  the  ways  of  Providence  are  myste- 
rious and  afflictive  to  us  ! 

That  Neologists  should  exult  in  the  alleged  skepticism  of  this  book,  is  no 
wonder  indeed ;  but  I  cannot  think  it  to  be  indicative  of  much  candour  and 
liberality  of  feeling.  Coheleth  is  an  ardent  inquirer,  and  in  one  respect,  if  I 
may  be  allowed  to  say  it,  he  is  like  them,  i.  e.  he  is  o.  philosopher .  But  Cohe- 
leth's  philosophy  begins  with  doubts,  and  ends  with  deep  conviction  of  truth 
and  with  reverence  for  God  and  his  commandments.  Their  course  is  usually 
the  reverse  of  this.  Kant's  last  words  are  said  to  have  been  :  "  All  is  dark." 
And  so  indeed  it  is,  where  the  Bible  is  superseded,  and  one's  own  reason  be- 
comes the  supreme  arbiter  of  all  things.  Even  if  Coheleth  be  in  reality  a 
doubter  in  immortality,  it  would  not  prove  that  all  the  Hebrews  were  so;  it 
could  not  disprove  the  assertion  of  Paul,  that  Abraham  '"looked  for  a  city 
which  hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker  is  God,"  nor  could  it  con- 
vict him  of  error  when  he  declared,  that  other  patriarchs  did  "  seek  a  better 
country,  even  a  heavenly  one,"  Heb  11:10 — 16.  Such  critics  mistake  the 
doubts  suggested  in  the  process  of  investigation,  i-n  this  book,  for  the  con- 
firmed opinions  of  the  writer  himself,  and  thus  they  argue  against  all  knowl- 
edge of  the  future  among  the  Hebrews,  from  his  alleged  views.  They  seem 
to  ignore  the  fact.  thatS-what  the  writer  undertakes  in  this  book,  is  not  to  dis- 
cuss the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  immortality,  or  the  existence  of  a  future  world  ; 
but  to  ask,  and  if  possible  answer,  the  question  :  h  tJiere  any  solid  and  lasting  (jood 
attainable  in  the  present  ivorld  ?  They  may  wonder,  and  so  ma}'  we,  that  the 
author  rarely  steps  beyond  the  boundaries  of  this  question,  until  near  the  close 
of  the  book.  We  can  scarcely  repress  the  feeling,  that  views  of  the  future 
must  have  thrust  themselves  in,  as  the  means  of  solving  many  &nodus  which 
is  presented.    And  we  have  that  same  feeling,  when  we  read  the  book  of  Job, 


Chap.  Vn.  1—29.  205 

which,  in  many  respects,  has  resemblances  to  Ecclcsiastcs.    Yet  in  cases  of 
this  kind,  very  much  depends  on  the  special  object  which  tlic  writer  had  i 
view,  as  well  as  on  his  state  of  knowledge.     Inspiration  does  not  put  a  man 
out  of  the  age  and  country  in  which  he  lives.    The  circumstauUals  of  a  writer 
remain  the  same,  whether  insj)ired  or  not.    And  these  always  aflcct  the  cos- 
tume of  his  work.     Let  Coheleth  be  judged,  then,  by  his  time,  his  circum- 
stances, and  the  object  he  had  in  view ;  and  if  so,  his  book  need  not  fear  the 
tribunal  of  criticism.  The  work  is  far  enough  removed  from  the  gloomy  con- 
ceptions and  views  of  a  hopeless  skeptic,  and  from  the  tame  and  dull  truism 
of  a  wiseacre.    It  is  full  of  vivacity,  of  deep  feeling,  and  of  a  pervading  spir  i  t 
of  submission  to  God  in  all  his  doings.  If  we  do  not  profit  by  it,  the  fault  is 
our  own.] 


§11.  Alleviations  in  various  distressing  circumstances.  Caution  as 
to  demeanor  toward  oppressors  and  rulers.  Our  miseries  are 
not  from  God,  hut  from  the  perversion  of  men. 

Chap.  YII.  1—29. 

[Left  in  despair  of  any  adequate  remedy  for  the  evils  of  life,  or  of  attaining 
to  wisdom  adequate  to  point  out  true  and  lasting  good,  the  writer  declares 
death  to  be  preferable  to  life.  Death  is  indeed  an  evil,  but  not  unmixed  with 
good  ;  for  some  advantage,  in  such  a  case,  may  accrue  to  mourners,  and  the 
wise  may  profit  by  being  among  them.  Fools  only  desire  continual  merri- 
ment ;  vs.  1 — 4.  But  even  the  rebuke  of  the  wise,  well  administered,  is  better 
than  the  merry  shouts  of  fools,  which  are  short-lived,  vs.  5,  6.  Still,  the  wise 
are  sometimes  thrown  off  their  guard  by  passion^  which  causes  much  misery, 
and  makes  even  the  wise  grow  mad  under  it.  But  they  ought  to  wait  with 
patience  for  the  end  of  such  things,  and  see  how  Providence  disposes  of  the 
issue  or  sequel,  and  not  to  be  impetuous  in  their  feelings,  nor  to  complain  of 
the  badness  of  the  times,  vs.  7 — 10.  After  all,  wisdom,  as  well  as  a  heritage, 
is  of  some  profit,  although  imperfectly  attained,  and  liable  to  be  blinded  for 
the  moment  by  untoward  circumstances.  Both  wisdom  and  money  are,  at 
times,  a  protection,  vs.  11,12.  Still,  we  must  remember  that  God  has  ordered 
all  matters,  and  tliat  we  ought  to  submit  to  his  ordinances,  v.  13.  Agreeably 
to  his  ordinance,  we  may  rejoice  in  prosperity,  but  we  should  also  consider 
well  in  the  day  of  adversity.  God  disposes  of  both  these  in  the  way  of  alter- 
nation, and  in  such  a  way  that  wc  cannot  scan  his  doings,  v.  14.  All  this 
Coheleth  has  reflected  upon  while  engaged  in  his  vain  pursuit.  Nor  does 
the  mystery  stop  even  here.  The  righteous  sometimes  perish  through  their 
probity,  and  the  wicked  enjoy  long  life  through  their  improbity,  v.  15.  To 
this  the  writer  brings  forward  a  kind  of  reply,  or  at  least  an  attempt  at  expla- 
nation. It  comes  in  tiie  form  of  a  precept,  the  purport  of  which  is  to  tell  how 
the  evil  in  question  may  be  shunned.  '  One  must  not  be  rigidly  unbending  in 
his  righteousness,  carrying  the  matter  to  severe  excess.    Nor  should  he  sedu- 

18 


206  Chap.  VIL  1—29. 

lously  endeavour  to  sliow  how  wise  he  is,  for  this  will  make  him  singular  and 
cause  liim  to  be  deserted.  Nor  should  he  be  very  wicked,  since  this  would 
show  him  to  be  a  fool :  for  it  brings  on  a  premature  death.  It  is  good  to 
attend  well  to  both  these  cautions,  for  he  who  fears  God  will  proceed  with 
both  in  his  eye,  vs.  15 — 18.  That  this  comment  on  the  destiny  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  (v.  15),  and  on  the  wisdom  here  aimed  at  (v.  16), 
is  not  satisfactory  to  the  writer,  will  appear  in  the  sequel.  For  the  present, 
as  wisdom  has  been  spoken  of,  in  the  attempted  reply,  as  a  means  oi  destroying 
or  making  one  desolate^  he  contents  himself  with  remarking,  that  wisdom  is  a 
more  effectual  security  for  protection,  than  ten  military  chieftains  with  their 
forces.  In  respect  to  such  protection,  wisdom  does,  at  times,  what  virtue  fails 
to  do,  because  all  men  sometimes  sin,  and  then,  not  their  virtue  but  their  skill 
protects  them;  vs.  19,  20.  If  one  makes  an  efl'ort  to  act  wisely,  he  will  doubtless 
set  in  motion  the  tongue  of  slander ;  but  he  must  give  no  heed  to  it,  for  it  is 
not  worth  minding.  If  you  are  over  eager  to  listen,  you  will  hear  something 
to  your  own  disadvantage,  even  from  servants.  Besides,  you  yourself  have 
sometimes  indulged  in  such  scandal,  and  you  must  therefore  expect  it  from 
others,  vs.  21,  22.  —  Coheleth  now  sums  up  by  saying,  that  he  has,  with  wari- 
ness, subjected  to  trial  the  wisdom  of  which  so  much  is  said,  in  order  to  dis- 
cover its  true  nature,  and  tried  to  become  wise  in  this  matter.  But  he  has 
found  the  thing  too  remote  and  deep  to  be  probed,  vs.  23,  24.  He  has  pur- 
sued the  investigation  of  wisdom  by  considering  it  as  contrasted  with/oZ/y  and 
madness,  v.  25.  Of  this  folly,  he  has  sought  out  the  most  prominent  and  con- 
spicuous sources  and  exemplars.  He  has  found  these  in  the  ensnaring  women  of 
his  time,  whose  seductive  appearance  and  demeanor  are  so  alhiring  and  fatal, 
that  only  those  specially  favored  of  God  escape  from  them.  He  has  desired 
to  find  some  abatement  of  this  charge,  but  he  cannot  find  one  in  a  thousand 
who  is  to  be  excepted.  Among  men,  the  case  is  somewhat  belter.  But  even 
there,  examples  are  very  rare,  vs.  27,  28.  But  whence  come  such  abounding 
perversity  and  wickedness  ?  God  made  man  upright ;  therefore  it  is  not  to  be 
put  to  his  account,  but  to  the  account  of  man  himself  who  has  degenerated, 
V.  29. 

This  chapter  mav  be  numbered  with  the  most  difficult  ones  in  the  book. 
There  is  less  of  orderly  sequency  and  of  close  or  discernible  connection. 
Actual  digressions,  indeed,  are  not  exactly  to  be  found  in  the  chapter ;  but 
transitions  from  one  subject,  or  one  aspect  of  a  subject,  to  another  are  frequent. 
To  a  mere  cursory  reader  much  of  the  chapter  has  the  appearance  of  apo- 
thegms or  sententious  sayings,  like  the  book  of  Proverbs.  But  a  closer  exami- 
nation dissipates  this  illusion,  and  shows,  in  the  main,  a  connected  under- 
current of  tliought.  Still,  it  is  miscellaneous.  The  writer  goes,  for  example, 
from  the  subject  of  death  and  mourning  to  that  of  oppression,  and  strives  to 
present  some  alleviations  and  administer  some  cautions  in  both  cases.  Once 
more  he  resumes  the  oft-considered  topic  of  «/Wo?».  and  also  glances  again  at 
that  of  wealth.  Both  of"  these  things  have  their  value,  in  some  respects  ;  but 
they  cannot  reverse  or  stay  the  ordinances  of  Providence.  God  has  designed 
to  hide  somethings  from  our  view,  and  therefore  we  cannot  search  them  out; 
but  our  safe  course  is  to  yield  implicit  submission  to  his  will.     Some  things 


Chap.  VII.  1—29.  207 

take  place  which  confound  ns ;  the  ri;j,htcous  suffer  the  doom  of  the  wicked, 
and,  cice  w/srt,the  wicked  prosper  as  if  righteous.  This  cannot  be  explained, 
by  putting  it  to  the  account  of  excess  in  the  righteous,  and  of  small  sins  in 
the  wicked.  Excess  in  either  is  not  the  ground  on  wliich  this  matter  rests. 
As  to  wisdom,  it  often  serves  for  a  defence,  even  where  virtue  would  not, 
or  could  not,  because  it  is  so  imperfect.  Let  no  one  be  dissuaded  from  labor- 
ing to  attain  wisdom,  by  the  tongue  of  slander  and  .scandal.  Give  no  ear  to  it, 
and  thus  escape  tlie  mortifications  of  it.  —  As  to  the  essential  nature  of  wisdom, 
what  it  is  in  itself,  and  whence  it  originates  —  we  cannot  develope  these  mat- 
ters as  we  may  wish.  But  something  we  may  know,  by  looking  at  and  con- 
sidering the  opposite  of  wisdom,  \\z.  foil  i/.  The  most  striking  examples  of  this 
are  among  enticing  Avomen ;  examples  of  virtue,  moreover,  are  very  rare  even 
among  men.  So  much,  at  all  events,  is  clear,  amid  all  that  may  be  doubtful, 
viz.  that  God  made  man  upriijht,  and  that  he  has  corrupted  himself 

Such  is  the  tenor  of  thought,  briefly  expressed,  and  divested  of  all  its  cir- 
cumstantial minutiae.  This  is  a  discursive  method  of  writing,  beyond  any 
doubt;  but  still,  disciirsii'eriess  and  free  latitude  in  thinking  pervade  the  book, 
and  designedly  so.  Yet  it  is  far  from  being  a  second  book  of  Proverbs. 
Single  and  unconnected  apothegms  are  rare  indeed  in  it,  and  in  fact  never 
appear,  as  has  already  been  said,  except  for  the  purpose  of  illustration.  But 
to  claim  for  it  the  regular  series  of  a  continuous  logical  process  throughout, 
would  plainly  be  to  make  an  extravagant  and  inadmissible  claim.  Such  is 
not  the  manner  of  Hebrew  writing  anywhere.  Paul  himself,  though  a  master- 
logician  in  fact,  with  few  exceptions,  never  presents  us  with  a  regular  and  con- 
tinued series  of  ratiocination.  The  times,  the  style,  the  genius  of  the  Heb.people, 
neither  required  nor  admitted  this.  But  Coheleth  has  a  wide  field  before  him, 
which  he  explores  in  search  of  some  solid  and  abiding  earthly  good.  "When  he 
viewed  some  of  the  leading  pursuits  of  men  in  one  light,  and  dismissed  them  as 
disappointing  our  hopes,  on  another  occasion  something  brings  them  to  his 
view  in  another  attitude,  and  he  again  contemplates  them,  and  then  decides  as 
before.  It  i^  in  this  way  that  seeming  repetition  occurs  ;  but,  excepting  his  re- 
peated final  conclusions,  it  is  rare  to  find  the  same  thing  looked  at  again  in  the 
same  attitude  and  in  the  same  light  as  before.  Free  digressive  remarks  often 
spring  from  ideas,  associated  with  something  which  he  mentions,  and  called 
fortli  by  that  something;  and  one  must  narrowly  watch  for  this,  who  desire 
to  explore  the  course  of  thought  and  the  connection  of  topics.  He  must 
not  think  of  binding  him  to  the  consecution  of  a  Paley.  or  a  AVhewell.  He  must 
rather  read  the  Consessus  Hariri,  or  the  Gnomes  of  some  of  the  Oriental  philoso- 
phers, or  the  book  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  if  he  wishes  to  obtain  light  on  the 
question  of  method  in  the  book  before  us.  It  is  through  and  through  Oriental, 
and  has  some  strong  resemblance,  in  more  than  one  respect,  to  some  parts 
of  the  Mishna.  Withal,  it  is  verilij  Tlebreic,  in  its  manner  and  method ;  but  not 
Heb.  history,  or  prophecy,  or  Psalms.  It  is  Heb.  philosophizing ;  and  at  least  as 
intelligible  as  that  of  our  cousin-  Germans.  Perhaps  parts  of  it  have  been  as  little 
understood  as  some  of  their  works.  But  patience  is  said  to  master  even  their 
works ;  perseverance  and  a  good  knowledge  of  the  Heb.  idiom  will  make 
most  of  this  book,  if  not  all,  quite  intelligible.  —  We  now  come  to  the  detail.] 


208  Chap.  VIL  1,  2. 

(1)  Better  is  a  good  name  than  precious  ointment,  and  so  the  day  of  one's 
death  than  of  his  birth. 

The  first  2i"J  is  predicate,  and  so  (as  usual  for  a  predicate  ad- 
jective) it  stands  first,  §  141.  —  cd ,  of  itself,  may  mean  good  name, 
by  established  Ileb.  usage,  Prov.  22  : 1.  Job  30  :  8.  —  The  second 
niu  qualifies  "i^^  ,  and  shows  that  it  means  perfumed  or  precious 
ointment.  But  why  does  the  writer  introduce  this  ?  Surely  not 
for  the  sake  of  establishing  a  proposition  respecting  a  good 
name,  or  good  oil,  but  for  the  sake  of  throwing  light,  by  com- 
parison, on  the  sentence  that  follows ;  i.  e.  that  the  day  of  one's 
death  is  as  much  better  than  that  of  his  birth,  as  a  good  name  is 
better  than  good  oil.  Doubtless  illustrations  as  striking  as  this 
might  have  been  selected  from  other  objects.  But  this  bears  every 
mark  of  being  a  common  apothegm  ;  and  it  Avas  ^^robably  chosen 
on  this  ground.  —  'i'i^^'7 ,  Niph.  Inf.  Nominas.  of  'ib'^ ,  lit.  of  being 
brought  forth.  The  suff.  here  indicates  that  there  is  an  implied 
suffix  after  n'l^ri ;  which  I  have  given  in  the  version.  That  com- 
parisons in  Heb.  often  omit  the  usual  comparative  particle  '3  or  3, 
and  put  1,  between  the  two  members,  is  a  matter  well  known  and 
established.  In  this  case  1.  is  equivalent  to  and  so,  or  and  thus ; 
see  §  152.  B.  3.  The  verse  before  us  reasserts,  in  another  form, 
the  sentiment  of  6  :  3.  New  reasons  for  despair,  exhibited  in  6  : 
4. — 12,  have  made  Coheleth  more  sick  at  heart  than  ever.  He 
does  not  say  merely  that  he  would  as  willingly  die  as  live,  but 
that  death,  the  termination  of  life,  is  altogether  better  than  birth, 
the  commencement  of  it.  But  if  death  be  not  at  present  attain- 
able, (he  never  once  speaks,  and  never  appears  to  think,  oi  suicide), 
then  the  next  most  mournful  concern,  attendance  on  the  death  or 
burial  of  others,  is  most  in  unison  with  his  then  present  feelings. 
In  point  of  fact,  indeed,  a  man  may  be  profited  by  resort  to  the 
house  of  mourning. 

(2)  It  is  better  to  go  to  tlie  house  of  mourning  than  to  go  to  the  house  of 
feasting,  because  this  is  the  end  of  all  men,  and  the  living  will  lay  it  to  heart. 

The  word  Ti'nt-q ,  banquet,  is  often  employed  in  the  more  gen- 
eral sense  given  to  it  here,  i.  e.  feast.  —  &<-n,  this  is,  §  119.  2.  — 
qiD,  the  end,  but  the  article  required,  is  put  before  the  Gen.  noun 
that  follows,  §  109.  1.  —  Dnxj,  tncm,  mankind,  or  every  man,  gene- 
ric. —  -inn ,  sing,  generic,  and  designating  a  class,  it  tal^es  the 


Chap.  VII.  3,  4.  209 

article ;  §  107. 3.  n.l.b.  —  Lat/  it  or  put  it  to  heart  is  the  familiar 
phrase  in  Heb.  to  designate  the  consideration  of  a  thing  ;  for  this 
meaning  of  ins ,  see  Lex.  It  is  placing  the  thing  before  the  mind, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  the  object  of  consideration.  Ilitzig  says, 
that  there  are  two  benefits  designated  here ;  the  one  is  the  house 
of  mourning,  where,  if  one  cannot  die  himself,  he  has  a  pleasure 
in  seeing  others  permitted  to  die,  or  it  is  reviving  to  him  ;  the 
other  is,  that  sober  reflection  will  be  useful.  The  first  of  these 
reasons  appears  strained  and  unnatural,  too  much  so  to  be  admis- 
sible ;  the  second  is  enough  to  establish  the  better  in  the  case, 
which  is  asserted. —  This  is  the  end  —  what?  The  answer  must 
be,  that  the  house  of  mourning  is,  i.  e.  represents,  symbolizes,  in 
an  expressive  manner,  the  end  or  death  of  all  men. 

(3)  Better  is  sorrow  than  laughter:  for  by  the  sadness  of  the  countenance 
the  heart  is  made  glad. 

'O'J'D  ,  aegritudo,  moeror,  grief  or  sorroiv  ;  often  it  means  vexa- 
tion, irritation,  but  not  so  here,  as  the  antithesis  shows.  —  pinb", 
lit.  laughter,  but  this  is  merely  the  expression,  here,  of  merriment, 
the  opposite  of  sorrow.  —  l^'H,  sadness,  see  Lex.  —  niJi'i ,  Imperf. 
with  Pattah,  §  69.  1.  —  The  heart  is  made  glad  ;  Hitzig  :  is  made 
sound.  But  plainly  soundness  is  not  the  opposite  of  sadness  ;  and 
ni::,  moreover,  has  all  along  the  sense  of  enjoyment,  gladness. 
Usually,  the  countenance  expresses  the  state  of  the  heart,  and 
when  that  is  sorrowful,  we  conclude  the  heart  to  be  so  ;  see  in 
Neh.  2  :  2.  But  there  the  writer  employs  an  Oxymoron,  in  order 
to  express  himself  with  point ;  (see  this  word  explained  in  N.  Test. 
Gramm.  p.  300).  We  might  say,  with  something  of  the  like  point : 
The  look  is  sad,  but  the  heart  not  bad.  —  i:j"'i  need  not  be  re- 
garded as  implying  mere  ordinary  merriment  here,  but  the  pleasure 
derived  from  sober  reflection.  The  whole  verse  is  only  an  exten- 
sion of  the  thought  in  v.  2.  In  v.  4  we  have  an  exhibition  of  the 
part  which  ivisdom  will  act. 

(4)  The  h^art  of  the  wise  is  in  the  house  of  mourning:  but  the  heart  of 
fools,  in  the  house  of  merriment. 

For  the  reasons  above  stated,  we  may  anticipate  what  part  the 
wise  will  act.     They  will  frequent  the  house  of  mourning,  for  the 
solid  profit  which  will  accrue  ;  but  fools,  who  love  laughter,  will 
18* 


210  Chap.  YIL  5,  6. 

prefer  the  house  of  merriment.  —  Heart,  in  the  text,  means  inclina- 
tion, feeling,  which  prompts  the  course  in  question. 

(5)  Better  is  it  to  hear  the  rebuke  of  a  wise  man,  than  that  one  sliould  hear 
the  song  of  fools. 

This  is  partly  digressive.  The  writer  pursues  the  idea  of  the 
difference  between  the  fooHsh  and  the  wise,  beyond  the  matter  of 
mourning  and  rejoicing.  So  much  more  highly  are  the  wise  to  be 
held  in  estimation,  that  one  had  rather  suffer  even  rehuhe  from 
them,  than  to  hear  the  plaudit-song  of  fools.  As  song  here  is  the 
opposite  of  rebuke,  so  encomiastic  or  plaudit-song  is  plainly  meant. 
In  other  words  :  Rebuke  from  the  wise  is  more  tolerable  than  the 
eulogy  of  fools.  —  r^ili,  Part,  auditurus,  or  it  may  merely  express 
the  repeated  act  of  hearing,  i.  e.  what  one  habitually  does ;  which 
is  a  special  office  of  the  participle.  The  Heb.  runs  thus,  lit. :  than 
a  man,  the  hearer  of  a  song,  etc.  The  plaudit-song  of  fools  is,  in- 
deed, noisy  enough,  but  very  short-lived  and  insignificant.  So 
the  next  verse :  — 

(6)  For  as  the  noise  of  thorns  under  a  pot,  so  is  the  laughter  of  the  fool. 
This  too  is  vanity. 

There  is  a  kind  of  paronomasia  or  assonance  in  this  verse. 
The  preceding  verse  has  tsib^^DSi ,  and  this  d'^'Ti&ri  (art.  generic)  ; 
In  V.  6  itself,  l"'&n  follows  Di'n^&li  ;  words  evidently  selected  for 
the  sake  of  assonance  ;  for  this  is  often  employed  to  give  point  to 
a  sententious  saying.  The  state  of  Palestine,  as  to  fuel,  makes 
plain  the  expression  :  thorns  under  the  pot.  No  fuel  but  bushes  is 
to  be  had  there ;  and  the  thorn  of  the  desert  is  often  employed  in 
cooking  food.  It  blazes  and  snaps  fiercely,  and  makes  much  noise 
for  a  little  while,  and  then  all  is  over ;  it  leaves  few  if  any  coals 
behind.  Of  course  something  more  substantial  is  needed  for  con- 
venient use.  So  is  it  with  the  noisy  merriment  —  the  laughter 
and  song  of  fools.  We  have  a  vulgar  proverb  of  nearly  the  same 
tenor  as  that  here  quoted :  Great  cry  and  little  wool.  The  fool's 
merriment  and  noisy  plaudits  amount  to  nothing.  —  The  '^3  at  the 
beginning  of  the  verse,  shows  that  the  design  is  to  give  the  ground 
of  the  preceding  declaration.  —  D^l ,  this  too,  i.  e.  this  as  well  as 
other  things  before  mentioned. 


Chap.  Vn.  7—9.  211 

(7)  But  oppression  rendereth  mad  a  wise  man,  and  a  gift  corrupteth  the 
heart. 

Rendereth  mad,  i.  e.  foolish ;  in  other  words,  the  practice  of 
oppressing  will  soon  bring  a  wise  man  to  act  as  a  fool.  The 
author  refers  to  the  practice  of  the  magistrates  of  that  day,  of 
which  he  so  often  complains.  As  to  making  mad,  comp.  Is.  44  : 
25.  As  to  the  character  and  effect  of  the  gift  (bribery),  see  Deut. 
16:19.  Exod.  23  :  8.  —  'iss^'^ ,  in  Piel,  either  leads  astray,  which  is 
the  original  idea,  or  corrupts,  in  the  moral  sense.  —  nb ,  heart,  i.  e. 
mind  or  soul.  In  Arabic,  Hakem  (=  Dzn)  means  magistrate,  and 
not  improbably  it  does  so  in  the  passage  before  us  ;  for  it  is  the 
corruption  of  a  judge,  to  which  the  gift  (bribery)  refers.  In  such 
a  case,  there  would  be  an  exception  to  the  value  of  a  rebuke  from 
a  Din ,  as  mentioned  in  v.  5  ;  and  perhaps  the  writer  means  to 
produce  an  oppressive  tin  here  in  the  way  of  an  exception  to 
the  general  principle. 

(8)  The  end  of  a  matter  is  better  than  its  beginning:  forbearance  of  spirit 
is  better  than  haughtiness  of  spirit. 

The  first  part  of  the  verse  seems,  at  first  view,  to  be  a  kind  of 
parallel  to  v.  1.  But  in  v.  8  it  stands  in  a  different  connection. 
Both  parts  of  the  verse  are  doubtless  proverbial  sayings,  applied 
by  the  writer  to  the  case  in  hand.  What  he  means  is,  that  the  end 
of  this  matter  of  oppressing  will  show  at  last  the  true  state  of  the 
thing ;  and  that  it  is  better  to  wait  —  to  exercise  forbearance  of 
mind,  than  haughtily  to  resent  the  injuries  received.  We  might 
expect  nn  *TJp,  hastiness  of  spirit,  in  contrast  with  nn  T(")i<. 
But  haughtiness  is  the  passion  which  most  and  quickest  of  all 
resents  oppression,  being  very  sensitive  to  indignity.  The  caution 
^is,  not  to  move  too  hastily  in  such  a  matter,  but  to  wait,  and  see 
how  it  will  turn  out  in  the  sequel.  That  such  is  the  indication, 
may  be  seen  by  what  follows.  —  Tj1i<  is  probably  the  const,  form 
of  Tj'^x  (adj.),  according  to  the  vowel-points.  The  sense  is  better, 
at  least  more  expressive,  if  pointed  T|'^k  (as  a  noun)  ;  and  so  nha 
(Infin.  noun)  may  be  regarded  as  a  parallel  construction  with  7^'nx . 

(9)  Be  not  hasty  in  thy  spirit  to  be  irritated,  for  irritation  dwelleth  in  the 
bosom  of  fools. 

This  repeats  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding  verse,  with  an 

additional  reason.  Avoid  an  irritable  temper  of  mind,  for  only  the 


212  Chap.  VII.  10,  11. 

foolish  indulge  it.  '  Embroil  not  yourself  with  the  oppressive  ruler, 
by  reason  of  hasty  vexation  or  sudden  passion' — is  the  substance 
of  the  sentiment.  —  n^s^ ,  Imperf.  of  n^ii,  indicating  (as  often) 
habitude,  §  125.  4.  h. 

(10)  Say  not:  Why  is  it  that  former  days  were  better  than  these  ?  for  thou 
dost  not  inquire  wisely  respecting  this. 

iT^n,  was  and  still  is. —  ^,  that. —  n?33n^,  Mt.  from  wisdom, 
i.  e.  it  comes  noi  from  wisdom  as  its  source  =  wisely.  —  ^)''^'^_ ,  con- 
cerning this,  Viz.  concerning  the  superiority  of  former  times  over  the 
present.  This  has  a  bearing  on  the  then  present  state  of  things. 
Men  are  presented  as  groaning  under  oppression ;  and  present  evils 
are  always  magnified  in  the  view  of  sufferers.  Hence  it  is  natural 
to  praise  former  times,  as  if  they  were  exempt  from  evils,  when, 
in  fact,  their  evils  are  merely  forgotten.  Every  day,  even  now, 
furnishes  us  with  examples  of  this  kind.  All  this  is  natural  to  men 
in  a  suffering  state.  Coheleth  means  to  say,  that  '  such  compari- 
sons will  provoke  the  rulers  as  well  as  help  to  aggravate  our  evils, 
and  thus  increase  the  difficulties  which  they  occasion.  Therefore 
be  ivise,  and  refrain  from  this.'  That  this  is  implied,  seems  to  be 
clearly  shown  from  the  next  two  verses,  which  speak  in  praise  of 
wisdom,  i.  e.  discretion  or  sagacity. 

(11)  Wisdom  is  good  as  well  as  an  inheritance,  specially  to  those  who 
see  the  sun. 

In  other  words  :  '  Act  wisely  in  respect  to  rulers  ;  for  wisdom 
will  protect  you  as  much  as  money.  It  is  of  great  benefit  to 
those  who  are  in  active  life.'  —  nbm  DSj  as  well  as  wealth ;  for 
that  D^  may  and  does  have  such  a  meaning,  is  clear ;  see  2 :  16 
and  remarks  there,  and  also  Lex.  ds^  B.  1.  d.  The  word  inherit- 
ance has  here  a  more  generic  sense,  meaning  wealth  of  any  kind. 
Besides,  in  the  next  verse,  wealth  or  money  is  made  coordinate 
with  wisdom,  not  subordinate  to  it.  The  sentiment  drawn  by 
many  from  this  verse,  viz.  that  '  wisdom  is  good  if  you  have 
money  with  it,'  is  both  tame  and  untrue  in  its  implication ;  for 
the  implication  would  be,  that  wisdom  is  not  good  unless  accom- 
panied by  wealth,  which  is  not  true.  —  ^nii  an  adverb  here,  viz. 
very,  very  much,  abundantly;  see  in  2:  15.  Sentiment:  '  Wis- 
dom is  good  as  well  as  wealth,  and  especially  good  for  those  on 


Chap.  VII.  12—14.  213 

the  stage  of  action.'  —  Those  who  see  the  sun,  means  living  men 
abroad  in  the  world  of  action;  comp.  6:  o.  11:  7.  So  the 
Greeks  :   '  Oquv  cpdo^  =  ^ijv ;  and  so  the  Latins  :   Diem  videre. 


(12)  For  wisdom  is  a  defence,  and  silver  is  a  defence  ;  but  a  preeminence 
of  knowledge  is  wisdom,  which  preserves  the  lives  of  its  possessors. 

In  b:^3 ,  the  S  is  the  so-called  S  essentiae,  and  therefore  need 
not  be  translated,  indeed  cannot  be,  so  as  truly  to  represent  the 
Heb.  idiom.  See  Lex.  s,  D.,  and  compare  ^11:3  in  v.  14  ==  niia . 
See  in  Job  23  :  13.  Gen.  49  :  24.  al.  in  Lex.  —  h:s. ,  lit.  shadow. 
In  the  glowing  East,  shade  is  a  most  grateful  and  salutary  protec- 
tion. The  Scriptures  often  employ  the  word  as  here :  Is.  30  : 
2,  3.  32:2.  Num.  14:9.  Lam.  4  :  20.  —  K  preeminence  or 
excellence  of  knowledge  is  the  predicate  in  the  second  clause  ;  and 
so  I  have  translated.  It  is  put  first,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis. 
'  That  wisdom,'  says  Coheleth,  '  which  preserves  life,  must  be 
regarded  as  an  excellent  knowledge,'  having  the  preeminence 
even  over  money ;  for  this,  although  it  may  and  does  at  times 
shield  us,  is  still  liable  to  be  lost ;  for  it  is  exposed  to  robbery,  to 
accident,  and  to  ill  success  in  business,  etc. 

All  this  looks  back  to  the  case  of  demeanor  under  the  oppres- 
sion of  rulers,  and  is  designed  to  show  the  importance  of  acting 
discreetly,  that  our  safety  may  not  become  endangered.  Wisdom 
here  is  truly  a  "ji^in^ . 

(13)  Consider  the  work  of  God;  who  can  make  straight  that  which  he 
hath  made  crooked  ? 

That  is,  in  all  these  troubles  and  perplexities,  remember  that 
there  is  an  overruling  Providence,  whose  arrangements  cannot 
be  opposed  or  disturbed.  When  the  will  of  God  is  ascertained, 
bow  to  it  in  quiet  and  silent  submission.  —  S'^ri'^Nii ,  like  0£oV  in 
Greek,  used  either  with  or  without  the  article.  Here  emphasis 
is  intended,  and  the  article  becomes  necessary.  —  '^3  (causal) 
stands  before  a  reason  for  considering  well  how  much  of  present 
trouble  results  from  the  unchangeable  ordinance  of  the  Power 
above.  —  in^.:; ,  Piel  with  sufF.,  root  ri^'  with  movable  1 . 

(14)  In  the  day  of  prosperity  be  joyful,  and  in  the  day  of  adversity  con- 


214  Chap.  VII.  14. 

sidcr;  moreover,  God  hatli  arranged  tliis  in  connection  with  that,  in  order 
that  man  should  not  discover  anything  wliich  will  be  after  him. 

Whatever  may  be  the  confusion  and  disorder  of  the  times, 
when  good  and  evil  alternate  and  are  fluctuating,  it  is  plain  that 
nothing  forbids  your  enjoyment  oi prosperity,  when  it  is  your  lot ; 
and  when  adversity  comes,  make  good  use  of  that  by  exercising 
sober  reflection  and  consideration.  —  niu:3  =  Siia,  with  a  essentiae; 
see  on  hi'2.  in  the  verse  above.  —  Consider,  instead  of  which  we 
should  have  expected  "na  n*;?! ,  he  sad,  as  the  opposite  of  niisa . 
But  nxi  gives  a  more  expressive  and  useful  counsel.  Men  do 
not  need  exhortation  to  sadness,  when  misfortunes  come  upon 
them.  God  has  arranged  these  alternations  in  such  a  way,  and 
so  entirely  are  they  under  his  own  control,  that  we  can  never 
predict  the  future  with  certainty.  We  know,  indeed,  that  alter- 
nations must  needs  take  place  ;  but '  how  and  when,  are  beyond 
our  ken.'  —  ri^arb  together  luith,  or  in  connection  ivith.  —  !-;rr  ar- 
range, constitute,  sl  frequent  meaning  of  this  word ;  see  Lex.  — h'j 
tJ  ri'nn'7  (const,  form  of  ri'nn'n),  on  the  ground  that,  in  order  that, 
(not  merely  so  that,  as  many  translate).  The  sentiment  plainly 
is,  that  God  has  so  arranged  the  alternations  of  good  and  evil, 
that  no  man  can  know  the  future  with  certainty ;  and  in  all  this 
he  has  a  design.  He  does  not  mean  to  admit  man  to  pry  into 
the  secret  thino;s  which  belono;  to  him  alone. 

The  mass  of  commentators  are  content  with  this  view ;  but 
Hitzig,  ever  watchful  to  detect,  and  bring  out  to  view,  any  skep- 
ticism in  the  Hebrews,  finds  a  different  sentiment,  viz., '  To  the 
intent  that  he  shall  seek  for  nothing  after  death.  God  leaves  good 
and  evil  to  alternate  here,  in  order  that  nothing  may  be  expected 
or  found  after  death.'  At  the  close,  he  adds :  "  This  sense  of 
the  passage  interpreters  en  masse  have  failed  to  discover."  —  But 
it  seems  to  me  no  matter  of  wonder,  that  they  have  failed  to  see 
what  was  not  to  be  seen.  Hitzig  gets  his  view  by  a  Hinein- 
exegesiren,  and  not  by  a  Heraus-excgesiren.  The  writer  has  said, 
again  and  again,  that  good  and  evil  are  not  duly  rewarded  in  the 
present  life.  His  greatest  complaint  is,  that  they  are  not.  How, 
then,  can  he  be  made  to  say  now,  that  good  and  evil  are  awarded 
here,  and  are  so  dispensed  that  no  farther  award  is  to  be  expect- 
ed ?  Ha})i)ily,  this  sharp-sighted  critic  does  not  often  titubate  so 
visibly  as  in  the  present  case. 


Chap.  VIL  15.  215 

(15)  All  this  luivc  I  considered  in  the  diws  of  my  vain  efforts  ;  there  is  a 
righteous  man  who  perislieth  through  his  righteousness;  and  there  is  a  wick- 
ed man  who  prolongcth  [his  days]  by  reason  of  his  wickedness. 

b'sri-nx ,  lit.  the  all,  which  I  have  rendered  all  this.  The  arti- 
cle makes  bs  refer  to  something  which  precedes,  viz.  what  is 
contained  in  vs.  13,  14.  He  means  to  say,  that  the  suhject  of 
tlie  mysterious  ahernations  of  good  and  evil  he  has  often  con- 
sidei-ed  in  the  days  of  his  bnn ,  i.  e.  of  his  vain  efforts  in  trying  to 
solve  the  problem ;  for  bnn  evidently  relates  to  something  that 
was  then  past,  and  therefore  to  his  vain  efforts.  As  to  the  mere 
fact  of  being  vanity,  personally  considered,  i.  e.  a  frail  dying 
creature,  that  was  as  true  when  this  was  uttered  as  it  ever  had 
been.  This  was  not  something  which  had  passed,  and  therefore 
this  was  not  the  kind  of  vanity  meant  in  the  text.  But  there  is 
a  new  attitude  in  which  the  subject  may  be  placed,  which  will 
show  more  fully  still,  that  there  is  a  mystery  respecting  the  dis- 
pensation of  good  and  evil,  which  is  more  perplexing  than  their 
mere  alternations.  This  is,  that  the  righteous  sometimes  perish 
(instead  of  receiving  a  reward),  for  the  very  reason  that  they  are 
righteous ;  while  the  wicked  enjoy  the  benefits  promised  to  the 
righteous,  by  means  of  their  wickedness.  In  other  words  :  '  Right 
fails,  and  wrong  prospers.'  How  shall  any  one  account  for  this  ? 
As  to  the  fact,  "  persecution  for  righteousness'  sake"  has  always 
existed  in  some  shape ;  so  that  a  man  may  perish  ip'iiiJS ,  by  or 
through  his  righteousness  —  not  merely  in  it.  After  Tp'^N^  the 
word  D"!^;^  is  implied  ;  for  the  full  expression  of  this  see  8:13. 
Deut.  4  :  26,  40.  5  :  30.  Josh.  24:31.  Prov.  8:16,  al.  For  the 
elliptical  expression,  as  here,  see  Prov.  28  :  2.  Long  life  is  every- 
where counted  among  the  Hebrews  as  a  blessing,  Ex.  20:  12. 
Deut.  11:9,  21.  Is.  65  :  20.  Ps.  49  :  10.  Prov.  28  :  16,  al.  — 
irr"]2 ,  by  or  on  account  of  his  wickedness,  not  merely  while  in  it. 
That  is,  the  wicked  often  prolong  their  days  by  the  acquisition  of 
various  comforts  and  means  of  promoting  health,  through  gains 
wickedly  obtained ;  or  it  may  be  that  they  escape  penal  justice 
by  means  of  bribery.  How  Providence  could  permit  this,  was  a 
great  mystery  —  and  one  which  Coheleth  thinks  has  not  been 
uncovered.  Of"  some  attempts  to  account  for  this,  he  has  indeed 
a  cognizance ;  or  it  may  be  that  he  tells  us  what  opce  passed  in 
his  own  mind,  in  the  days  of  his  vanity. 


216  Chap.  VIL  16,  17. 

(16)  Be  not  righteous  over  much,  nor  display  thyself  as  being  wise;  why 
shouldest  thou  make  thyself  to  be  forsaken  ? 

In  other  words,  a  course  too  exact,  rigid,  and  severe,  occasions 
the  misfortunes  of  the  righteous.  They  overdo.  And  so  also 
they  show  themselves  as  wise,  or  demean  themselves  as  claiming  to 
he  wise,  DSnnn  Hith.,  i.  e.  wiser  than  others ;  and  so,  by  carry- 
ing these  things  to  excess,  they  cause  themselves  to  be  deserted 
or  forsaken,  d^ai^Pi ,  Hithp.  for  dTsidrn ,  make  thyself  desolate  or 
lo7iely.  Like  Job  in  16  :  7,  (on  which  passage  the  writer  perhaps 
had  his  eye),  friends  forsake  him,  and  leave  him  to  his  fancied 
superior  sanctity  and  wisdom.  But  the  verse  above  speaks  of 
his  perishing.  This  also  may  be  involved  in  d'oiii'Pi ,  or  at  least 
the  consequence  of  it.  —  ^ni^  is  evidently  adverbial  here,  (see  in 
V.  11),  and  corresponds  to  !i3"iri  in  the  first  clause.  The  next 
verse  continues  the  comparison. 

(17)  Be  not  wicked  over  much,  and  be  not  foolish ;  why  shouldest  thou  die 
before  thy  time  1 

That  is,  great  wickedness  only  leads  to  destruction,  and  makes 
a  man  a  fool.  All  men  sin  some,  and  sometimes  act  unwisely  ; 
but  it  is  only  when  they  become  abandoned  and  turn  fools,  that 
they  perish.  Excess  in  both  cases  destroys.  Those  who  are 
righteous  in  a  moderate  measure,  may  remain  safe ;  and  so  with 
the  wicked  who  observe  moderation.  —  Tf]'j  ikh^ ,  lit.  i^i  thy  not 
time,  i.  e.  untimely. 

This  17th  verse  evidently  does  not  correspond  exactly  with 
the  last  clause  of  v.  15,  prolongeth  his  days  by  wickedness.  It 
merely  maintains  that  excessive  wickedness  destroys  instead  of 
preserving.  But  by  implication  it  admits,  that  wickedness  short 
of  this  may  consist  with  prolongation  of  days.  In  other  words, 
the  statement  in  v.  15  is  limited  and  softened  down  by  vs.  16, 17; 
for  it  is  here  suggested,  that  only  excess  in  righteousness  causes 
the  mischief  complained  of,  and  that  prosperity  in  wickedness 
cannot  truly  be  affirmed  of  such  as  are  very  wicked.  Verses  16 
and  17  do  not  directly  deny  or  contradict  v.  15,  but  they  qualify 
and  diminish  the  force  of  its  expressions.  The  inference  is,  that 
the  objector  in  this  case,  (no  matter  whether  the  objection  comes 
from  Coheleth's  own  deliberating  mind,  or  is  suggested  by  an- 
other) —  the  objector  intends  to  say,  that  the  proposition  of  v.  15 


Chap.  \T[L  18,  19.  217 

cannot  be  admitted  in  its  full  latitude.  There  is  evidently  an 
attempt  to  diminish  the  force  of  the  objection  against  the  mystery 
of  providential  arrangements.  What  is  said,  in  v.  1 5,  is  assumed, 
as  applicable  only  to  cases  of  excess  in  righteousness,  or  to  a  low 
or  small  degree  of  sin. 

Nor  has  the  objector  yet  done.  He  goes  on  to  show  the  im- 
portance of  his  suggestion,  in  the  following  verse. 

(18)  It  is  good  that  thou  shouldest  keep  hold  of  this,  and  also  not  let  go 
thy  hand  from  that ;  for  he  who  fears  God,  will  make  his  way  with  all  of 
them. 

Keep  hold  of  this,  refers  to  the  precept  he  had  given  respectino- 
excess  in  righteousness  ;  not  let  go  thy  hand  from  that,  means  that 
he  should  also  observe  due  caution  in  regard  to  excess  of  wicked- 
ness. By  a  wary  observance  of  these  cautions,  he  will  be  safe. 
And  he  who  fears  God,  i.  e.  fears  to  incur  his  displeasure,  will  go 
along  the  path  of  life  associating  these  maxims  with  all  his  steps, 
so  as  not  to  depart  from  them.  It  seems  plain  to  me,  that  this 
verse  comes  from  the  same  quarter  as  the  last  two  verses  which 
precede  it.  It  is  an  attempted  confirmation  of  what  is  there  said. 
—  riT^a  is  put  at  the  head  of  the  second  clause,  in  order  to  make 
the  contrast  with  nta  more  striking.  —  nsn ,  Hiph.  apoc.  of  n^5 ; 
see  Lex.  B. —  Will  make  his  loay  with  both,  usually  rendered: 
Will  escape  both.  But  how  can  i<2C'i  be  made  to  govern  the  Ace.  ? 
It  is  an  intransitive  verb  in  Kal ;  and  the  cases  appealed  to  in 
Gen.  44 :  4.  Ex.  9  :  29,  33,  etc.,  are  not  parallel  with  the  present. 
K  the  sense  in  question  were  intended,  it  would  be  followed  by 
"i^,  from;  see  Jer.  11 :  11.  As  the  phrase  now  stands,  it  desig- 
nates the  idea,  that  he  who  will  go  safely  so  as  to  avoid  the 
divine  displeasure,  will  make  his  way  as  it  were  in  company 
with  both  the  cautions  given,  or  (in  other  words)  he  will  take 
them  along  with  him.  These  cautions  are  expressed  by  d^5  all 
of  them,  viz.  all  of  the  things  he  had  just  said.  In  the  other 
mode  of  rendering,  the  meaning  of  all  of  them  must  be,  all  of  the 
disasters.  The  sense  would  be  well  enough,  if  we  could  make 
&<^'^  govern  an  Ace.  As  we  cannot,  we  must  adopt  the  other 
method ;  which  Hitzig  does  in  his  Comm. 

(19)  Wisdom  strengthens  a  wise  man  more  than  ten  chieftains  who  are  in 
a  city. 

19 


218  Chap.  VIL  19. 

In  V.  12  above  he  has  said  of  wisdom,  that  it  is  a  defence.     It 
cannot  indeed  overleap  the  bounds  which  Providence  has  set  to  the 
achievements  of  man,  but  it  can  do  more  than  riches,  and  be 
available  where  they  are    not.     The  intermediate  matter   (vs. 
15 — 18)  is  a  partial  digression  from  his  immediate  object,  which 
is  to  set  forth  the  various  advantages  connected  with  wisdom  or 
sagacity.     A  seeming  exception  to  its  claims  is,  that  the  right- 
eous and  the  wicked  sometimes  take  each  the  other's  place  in  the 
award  that  follows  their  actions.     After  suggestions  in  the  way 
of  opposition,  that  some  abatement  must  be  made  from  this  state- 
ment, or  some  qualification  of  its  terms,  and  an  assertion  that 
shunning  all  excesses  will  keep  every  man  in  safety,  the  writer 
resumes  the  subject  of  wisdom,  in  the  verse  before  us.     It  will 
be  seen,  of  course,  that  he  does  not  immediately  answer  or  oppose 
the  suggestions  that  had  been  made,  although  it  would  seem, 
by  the  sequel,  that  he  does  not  Avholly  accede  to  the  views  ad- 
vanced in  those  suggestions.     For  the  present,  he  has  further  to 
say  of  wisdom,  that  in  the  way  of  protection  it  often  answers 
purposes  that  power  or  force  cannot  answer ;   yea,  which  even 
piety  itself  cannot ;  since  all  men,  even  good  ones,  commit  more 
or  less  of  sin,  and  then  they  are  exposed  to  its  consequences.  — 
VJt\ ,  not  is  strong,  but  actively  here,  viz.  gives  strength,  makes 
strong,  or  strengthens.     The  \  before  the  object  marks  the  direc- 
tion, and  so  conveys  the  sense  of  imparting  to.     The  vowel 
(Seghol)  belongs  to  the  suppressed   article.  —  '^7^'?'2 ,  noun  of 
number  in  the  abs.  state,  see  Parad.  in  §  95  ;  also,  for  construc- 
tion with  the  abs.  noun  that  follows,  consult   §  118.  1.  h,  and 
No.  2.  —  D'^i^'^Vr? )  here  chieftains  of  troops,  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  demands,  for  what  is  said  refers  to  defence.     '^""^"^^  is  one 
who  rules  in  any  way.     {Sultan  is  an  Arab,  form  from  the  root 
of  this  same  word).     The  chieftains  include  by  implication  the 
forces  which  they  lead.     The  noun  of  number  is  Nom.  sing,  in 
form,  but  a  collective  plur. ;  see  Gramm.  §  95.  —  ^ifi ,  are,  §  124.  3. 
What  he  means  is,  that  there  are  times  when  sagacity  is  of  more 
avail  than  force  of  arms  ;  for  the  latter  can  be  i^epelled  by  like 
force,  while  the   former  makes   calculations   for   safety,  which 
cannot  always   be  anticipated  or  adequately  met.     Ten  is  not 
here  designed   to  mean  just  this  number ;  but  (as   often  else- 
where) for  the  designation  of  a  considerable  number. 


CiiAP.  VII.  20.  219 

(20)  For  there  is  not  a  just  man  on  earth,  wlio  doeth  good,  and  sinneth 
not. 

Apparently  the  sentence  is  causal,  for  it  is  preceded  by  "^3  . 
But  what  reason  is  contained  in  it,  to  establish  the  validity  of 
the  preceding  remark?  A  question  that  has  much  perplexed 
the  commentators,  who  have  answered  it  very  variously.  The 
true  exegesis  of  it,  as  it  seems  to  me,  has  already  been  hinted,  in 
the  remarks  on  the  preceding  verse.  Apparently  it  amounts  to 
this :  After  saying  that  wisdom  is  a  protection  more  to  be  relied 
on  than  wealth,  and  even  more  than  military  force,  he  now 
suggests,  that  even  righteousness  may  sometimes  fail  its  possessor 
as  a  means  of  preservation,  because  it  is  not  constant  and  uni- 
form, but  at  times  is  interrupted  in  all  men  by  sin ;  when,  of 
course,  its  protective  power  for  a  time  must  cease.  If  "^S  be  ren- 
dered truly,  surely,  the  verse  is  then  made  into  an  apothegm, 
true  indeed,  but  irrelevant.  If  we  interpret  it  as  just  proposed, 
the  relevancy  of  it  at  least  seems  to  be  discernible. 

It  is  possible  that  Heiligs.  may  be  in  the  right,  who  makes  a 
transition  here  in  the  discourse,  and  supposes  the  writer  now  to 
be  intent  on  chastising  the  spirit  of  those  who  are  prone  to  find 
fault  with  others,  by  suggesting  to  them,  that  they  should  keep 
in  view  the  fact,  that  no  one  is  perfect,  and  therefore  should  be 
kind  and  candid.  Perhaps  the  next  verse  favours  this,  which,  it 
cannot  well  be  doubted,  has  a  reference  to  rulers,  i.  e.  to  the 
reports  of  men  respecting  them.  But  as  there  is  no  particle  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse  which  indicates  a  new  turn  of  the 
subject,  but  is  indicative  merely  of  the  reason  for  what  has  been 
said,  and  as  the  sentiment  adopted  by  Heiligs.  appears  somewhat 
abrupt  without  some  indication  of  transition,  the  former  method, 
defended  by  Hitzig,  seems  rather  preferable.  It  must  be  owned, 
however,  that  some  obscurity  rests  on  the  exact  aim  of  the 
author  here.  But  the  whole  chapter  has  more  of  the  apotheg- 
matic  character  than  usual. 

Were  it  not  for  the  "^S  ,  we  might  give  the  verse  another  turn. 
In  vs.  7 — 12  above,  he  has  introduced  the  subject  of  oppressive 
magistrates,  and  cautioned  against  dealing  hastily  or  haughtily 
with  them.  He  has  commended  the  wisdom,  which  enables  one 
to  steer  safely  without  provoking  them,  or  without  coming  into 
offensive  contact  with  them.     If  now  he  be  viewed  here  (in  v. 


220  Chap.  VIL  21,  22. 

20),  as  intending  to  soften  down  the  irritated  feelings  of  the 
oppressed  against  their  rulers,  by  suggesting  that  all  men,  even 
the  best,  are  liable  to  sin,  and  that  therefore  we  should  not  be 
too  severe  in  our  judgment  of  them  ;  then  would  the  verse  be  a 
good  preparative  for  what  follows,  the  design  of  which  is  to  show 
that  hasty  and  exaggerated  or  slanderous  reports  should  not  be 
readily  admitted  and  believed.  This  would  add  to  the  cautions 
already  given  above  ;  and  with  this  the  subject  is  here  dismissed. 
The  reader  can  choose  for  himself.  The  ^3  in  question  seems  to 
stand  in  my  way,  with  respect  to  adopting  the  view  last  sug- 
gested; although  I  do  not  think  it  an  insuperable  obstacle,  be- 
cause it  sometimes  stands  at  the  head  of  a  new  discourse,  (see  Is. 
15:1.  8 :  23.  Job  28  :  1),  and  then  means  verily,  surely,  immo ; 
see  on  4  :  1 6. 

(21)  Moreover,  give  not  thy  mind  to  all  the  words  which  are  uttered,  in 
order  that  thou  mayest  not  hear  thy  servant  cursing  thee. 

That  is,  listen  not  to  tale-bearers  and  slanderers.  Magistrates 
are  specially  exposed  to  assaults  in  this  way.  But  if  you  indulge 
the  disposition  to  hear  such  things,  you,  who  are  a  master,  may 
be  very  likely  to  hear  them  from  your  servants,  who  stand  in  a 
relation  to  you  like  that  in  which  you  stand  to  your  rulers.  Men 
in  such  a  relation  are  apt  to  be  hardly  judged  and  talked  about, 
as  experience  shows.  This  is  the  reason  why  servants  are  here 
mentioned  as  examples  for  warning.  They  are  often  prone  to 
tattle  and  to  find  fault  with  their  master  ;  and  such  is  the  case  of 
others  in  respect  to  their  civil  rulers,  who  exact  tribute  of  them. 
Now  as  you  dislike  such  slander  against  yourself,  and  often  feel 
that  it  is  groundless  and  wanton,  so  may  your  civil  masters  feel 
in  respect  to  their  detractors.  —  ii;i3^;'  (in  pause)  is  3d  Plur. 
impers.,  there  being  no  subject  expressed.  Of  course  it  may  be 
translated  as  virtually  a  passive  verb  ;  and  so  I  have  rendered  it ; 
§  134.  2.  —  Give  not  thy  mind,  means  :  '  Do  not  deem  it  an  object 
worthy  of  serious  attention,  nor  one  that  ought  to  occupy  the 
mind.'— 'ntJX ,  that,  so  that.  — ^hh^-Q,Fa.rt.  Piel,  with  suff;  Dagh. 
omitted  in  the  first  h ,  as  oftentimes,  §  20.  3.  b.  —  r\-  suff.  in 
pause ;  see  p.  288.  Par.  col.  A. 

(22)  For  thine  own  heart  also  knoweth  many  times,  when  even  thou  thyself 
hast  cursed  others. 


Chap.  VH.  23,  24.  221 


As  a  proof  or  ground  of  what  he  had  just  said,  he  now  appeals 
to  the  experience  of  the  individual  addressed.  He  suggests  that 
he  himself  must  be  sensible,  that  he  has  exercised  the  temper 
which  would  lead  him  to  curse  others ;  and  why  may  he  not 
expect  the  like  from  them  ?  There  is  nothing  strange  in  it.  — 
Di-crs  fem.  with  a  masc.  form,  as  ms"i_  shows,  §  105.  4.  It  means 
here  cases,  or  what  we  usually  call  instances  ;  and  it  is  in  the  Ace. 
governed  by  ^y^ .  So  Ilitzig.  —  l^5<  =  '^I?!^?  >  as  the  Qeri  shows ; 
see  in  Neh.  9 :  6.  Ps.  6  :  4  al.  Such  being  the  proneness  of  human 
nature  to  think  and  speak  ill  of  superiors,  one  needs  to  be  well 
guarded  ajrainst  this  vice. 


(23)  All  this  have  I  tried  by  wisdom.  I  have  said  :  Let  me  become  wise 
now;  but  it  was  far  from  me. 

He  means  to  say,  that  he  had  made  a  discerning  and  sagacious 
trial  of  the  much-talked-of  wisdom.  He  had  applied  practical 
wisdom  in  order  to  search  out  and  investigate  the  true  nature  and 
essence  of  wisdom;  for  this  seems  to  be  the  object  now  before  us. 
Already  has  he  told  what  practical  wisdom  achieves.  But  now 
he  wishes  to  go  deeper,  to  inquire  into  and  search  out  its  real 
nature  and  essence.  —  i^^SHX ,  Imperf.  hortative,  §  48.  3,  with 
parag.  n- .  —  i^^iri ,  this  thing,  viz.  the  becoming  wise,  fem.  for  neu- 
ter, as  usual. —  Far  from  me,  i.e.  out  of  his  reach,  he  could  not 
attain  to  it.  Viewed  in  the  light  in  which  it  is  now  placed,  this 
verse  is  not  a  contradiction  of  the  asserted  value  of  wisdom, 
already  made  in  various  ways.  It  is  designed  to  show,  that  be- 
yond the  point  of  that  value,  i.  e.  beyond  its  practical  effects,  he 
could  not  successfully  pursue  inquiries  so  as  to  discover  its  real 
nature  or  essence.  The  next  verse  shows  how  fully  he  was  per- 
suaded of  this. 

(24)  That  which  is  far  off  and  very  deep  —  who  can  find  it  out  ? 

Not  with  Ilerzf.  :  far-off  remains,  what  was  far  off ;  nor 
with  Ewald  :  far  off —  what  is  it  1  nor  with  Rosenm. :  that  is 
far  off  which  before  was  present  (?)  —  n^ri'ij-n'a  ,  that  which  is. 
The  predicate  pirri  is  placed  first  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  — 
pi-Q^  is  made  emphatic  by  repetition,  §  106.  4.  tis-  verbal  suff. 
The  whole  hangs  on  the  <i;^!'in"i,  of  v.  23.  The  gender  of  the  adjec- 
tives is  changed  in  v.  24,  because  the  proposition  there  assumes  a 

19* 


222  Chap.  VIL  25. 

more  generic  form.  Indeed,  it  appears  like  a  common  colloquial 
apothegm  ;  and  here  it  is  cited  probably  in  the  way  that  accords 
with  its  usual  popular  form.  Sentiment :  '  What  I  sought  was 
exceedingly  beyond  my  power  to  attain.' 

But  although  he  discovered  thus  much,  as  to  the  way  in  which 
he  had  been  investigating,  yet  he  did  not  wholly  abandon  the  pur- 
suit. He  tried  the  matter  once  more  in  the  way  of  examining  the 
opposite  or  antithesis  of  wisdom,  in  order  that  he  might  thus,  i.  e. 
in  the  way  of  antithetical  comparison,  discover  something  more  of 
the  true  nature  of  that  which  he  was  investigating. 

(25)  I  turned  myself,  and  my  purpose  was  to  acquire  knowledge  and  to 
investigate,  even  to  seek  out  wisdom  and  intelligence,  and  to  know  wicked- 
ness as  folly,  and  folly  as  madness. 

"izbi  has  been  an  offendiculum  criticorum  here.  Knobel,  Heiligs., 
and  even  Hitzig,  with  others,  make  it  the  instrumental  Ace,  and 
translate :  with  my  mind,  as  if  it  were  'isbs ,  (as  a  number  of 
Codices  have  it).  But  '^sbi  cannot  be  here  translated  with  or  hy 
my  mind.  If  this  were  the  meaning,  the  1  must  of  course  be 
omitted,  and  ^lih  be  taken  as  the  Ace.  of  manner  or  instrument 
(§  116.  3),  =  intellig enter.  But  as  the  text  is,  'lab  must  be  the 
subject  of  the  clause ;  the  copula  (n;^li  or  !S^n)  is  implied,  and  the 
Infinitives  (nominascent)  that  follow  are  the  complement  or  predi- 
cate. That  nb  may  mean  desire,  purpose,  wish,  admits  of  no  doubt ; 
see  Lex.  misb ,  d.  —  ''i:\l  '^J^ln^  forms  a  new  clause,  to  distinguish 
which,  the  b  before  the  Inf.  is  omitted.  The  clause  is  epexegeti- 
cal  and  supplementary,  inasmuch  as  the  first  clause  says  nothing 
more,  than  that  he  addressed  himself  to  acquiring  knowledge  and 
investigating,  but  without  saying  what  it  was  which  he  investi- 
gated ;  while  the  second  clause  tells  us  what  the  objects  of  inquiry 
were,  and  irj^a  sums  up  and  comprises  the  meaning  of  the  two 
preceding  verbs.  Hitz.  puts  nr'ib  and  nsinb  in  the  Ace.  after 
d)5S ,  and  of  course  translates  thus  :  And  with  my  mind  to  seek  to 
know  and  to  investigate.  The  sense,  in  itself,  is  well  enough,  but 
one  of  the  two  Vafs  must  be  ejected,  in  this  case,  from  the  text, 
either  that  before  ^'^^ ,  or  else  that  before  \r;?S .  It  is  unneces- 
sary and  inexpedient  to  do  this.  Heiligs.  moves  on  without  the 
least  notice  of  any  difficulty  in  the  text,  and  says  nothing  of  the  1 
in  question.     Knobel  recognizes  it,  but  ejects  the  first  1  sans  cere- 


Chap.  VU.  25.  228 

monie.  None  of  these  plans  admit  and  explain  the  text  as  it  is. 
But  surely  there  is  no  necessity  of  changing  it ;  as  the  version 
above  shows.  In  the  case  of  ^'^,'y\ ,  I  have  rendered  1  by  even 
(§  152.  B.  2),  wliich  is  the  proper  translation  before  an  epexegeti- 
cal  clause  designed  rather  to  explain  than  to  add  anything  new. 
—  "jiabn  is  another  term  for  wisdom,  designating  it  as  meditating 
or  excogitating.  Both  terms  increase  the  intensity  of  expression  zz; 
wisdom  in  the  highest  sense.  It  is  the  nature  of  this  which  he  is  now 
seeking  out.  — bC3  'S'C^^ ,  not  the  wickedness  offoUy,  (for  this  would 
be  bbSfi  'S'^^, ),  but  wickedness  as  folly.  —  And  folly  as  madness, 
the  same  construction  as  before,  the  latter  noun  having  no  article 
and  no  i ,  and  thus  showing  that  it  is  subordinate  and  explana- 
tory, and  not  a  case  of  const,  noun  with  a  Genitive  after  it.  In 
nibrsn,  the  article  merely  points  to  the  preceding  b:D,  and  is 
as  much  as  to  say  :  that  folly.  So  that  from  both  clauses  we  ob- 
tain the  sentiment,  that  wickedness  is  both  folly  and  madness ; 
which  surely  is  a  sound  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  The  word 
n^baD  is  merely  a  variation  in  form  (not  in  meaning)  from  the 
preceding  bsG .  Thus  much  for  the  grammatical  part  of  our  inves- 
tigation. 

The  occasion  of  what  is  here  said,  seems  to  have  been  taken 
from  V.  17  :  Be  not  wicked  overmuch,  nor  he  thou  foolish.  It  seems 
to  be  there  assumed,  that  it  is  only  a  high  degree  of  wickedness 
(rtS'nin)  which  makes  a  man  foolish.  That  is,  he  may  be  some- 
what wicked,  and  yet  be  wise.  Coheleth  is  not  satisfied  with  such 
a  view  of  the  subject,  although  the  sentiment  which  it  conveys  is 
designed  to  apologize  or  account  for  the  mysterious  providence 
described  in  v.  15.  He  thinks  all  wickedness  to  he  folly,  and  that 
this  folly  is,  moreover,  a  lack  of  reason,  or  madness.  He  had 
sought  to  discover  the  nature  of  true  wisdom,  contemplated  by 
itself;  but  this  was  far  away  and  deep.  He  now  makes  another 
effort ;  and  this  is,  to  seek  out  what  wisdom  is  by  searching  into 
its  opposite,  or  antithesis,  viz.  folly.  This  is  equivalent  to  wicked- 
ness, and  also  to  madness.  True  wisdom  stands  opposed  to  all 
three.  All  sin,  then,  in  his  view,  is  folly ;  and  not  merely  an 
excess  of  wickedness  is  sin,  but  every  degree  of  it.  Consequently, 
to  be  wise,  is  to  refrain  from  all  sin  ;  for  the  commission  of  it,  in 
any  manner  or  measure,  is  folly  and  wickedness,  so  far  as  it 


224  Chap.  VII.  26. 

What  follows,  I  regard  as  designed  to  exhibit  how  widely  sin 
and  folly  are  diffused  abroad.  Examples  on  all  sides  are  before 
him,  and  he  can  easily  discover  what  folly  is,  by  observing  and 
examining  these  examples.  And  if  folly  can  be  fully  seen,  then 
its  opposite,  viz.  wisdom,  may  of  course  be  better  understood. 
Withal,  the  reader  should  compare  the  verse  before  us  with  1: 17 
and  2:  12 — 15,  where  he  speaks  more  despairingly  of  acquiring 
an  adequate  knowledge,  and  thinks  it  to  be  n^i^  )'2yJ  • 

(26)  And  I  found  more  bitter  than  death  the  woman  whose  heart  is  nets 
and  snares,  whose  hands  are  chains  ;  he  Avho  is  pleasing  to  God  shall  be  de- 
livered from  her,  but  the  sinner  shall  be  caught  by  her. 

This  is  truly  Oriental  in  its  conception.  Women,  it  seems,  are 
the  examples  most  in  point  of  the  folly  in  question.  The  low  esti- 
mate in  which  females  are  held  throughout  the  East,  even  down 
to  the  present  day,  never  associating  in  the  company  of  men,  nor 
even  eating  with  them,  being  moreover  without  education  or  any 
true  dignity  of  character,  and  reckoned  as  mere  menial  instru- 
ments of  man's  pleasure,  leads  of  course  to  degradation  and  depra- 
vation of  character.  Here,  then,  Coheleth  seeks  his  most  striking 
examples  of  folly,  either  in  its  mental  or  moral  sense.  How  dif- 
ferent is  the  case  in  those  countries  on  which  the  light  of  the 
gospel  has  dawned !  Indeed,  the  state  of  things  is  quite  the 
reverse.  Were  we  now  to  make  the  same  inquest  which  he  did, 
we  should  first  betake  ourselves  to  the  male  rather  than  the 
female  sex,  in  order  to  hght  upon  those  where  wickedness  more 
fully  abounds.  So  much  has  Christianity  done  for  women.  But 
still,  I  cannot  assent,  here,  to  those  critics,  who  make  Coheleth's 
proposition  a  general  or  rather  a  universal  one  in  respect  to  the 
sex.  Plainly,  he  does  not  speak  of  all  women,  but  only  of  those 
who  employ  their  arts  and  charms  to  inveigle  paramours.  He 
likens  these  arts  to  nets  and  toils,  which  inclose  and  secure  their 
prey  ;  and  their  clinging  hands  he  calls  chains,  because  they  hold 
fast  the  victim.  Highly  favored  of  God  is  the  man  who  escapes 
their  enticements,  and  only  those  who  are  displeasing  in  his  sight, 
i.  e.  sinners,  will  be  ensnared  by  them.  This  is  a  high,  although 
not  directly  designed  encomium  on  chastity  in  men  ;  and  it  shows 
that  the  writer  was  no  mere  voluptuary.  What  he  says  of  women 
bearing  the  character  here  described,  we  may  fully  accede  to, 


Chap.  VII.  27.  225 

even  at  the  present  time  ;  and  among  them  we  might  say,  as  he 
afterwards  says,  that  there  is  not  one  in  a  thousand,  i.  e.  one 
example  of  wisdom  in  its  true  sense.  —  mrxn-rx ,  Ace.  after  i<:£i^; 
which  last  word  is  pointed,  as  to  its  final  vowel,  in  the  Syriac 
fashion,  instead  of  taking  the  usual  Tseri;  see  §  74.  VI.  n.  21.  a. 
So  i^'^in,  in  this  same  verse,  is  written  xwin  in  8 :  12.  9  :  18.  — 
There  is  some  difficulty  in  the  construction  of  s<^n-*i^i<  here. 
The  most  facile  method  of  rendering  the  clause  is  to  put  together 
Jnab  .  .  .  ^dx ,  and  translate  :  whose  heart.  The  only  objection  to 
this,  is  that  made  by  Hitzig,  viz.  that  if  inab  were  the  subject  or 
Nom.  of  the  clause,  then  the  fem.  &<ifn  could  not  be  employed, 
but  N^in  must  be  inserted.  But  this  rests  simply  on  the  ground 
that  s?  is  masc,  and  that  consequently  the  pronoun  must  be  of  the 
same  gender.  But  this  is  far  from  being  certain,  ib  makes  its 
plur.  mzb  ;  which  Fuerst  says  (Concord.)  must  come  from  nsb  fem. 
But  why  ?  Are  there  not  many  nouns  ofcomm.  gender,  which  have 
a  masc.  form  for  their  singular  ?  E.  g.  \L'S3 ,  plur.  ni;!;B3 ,  a  word 
of  kindred  meaning  with  nb .  So  the  fuller  form  ^sb  has  masc. 
and  fem.  forms  both  in  the  plural,  indicating  a  common  gender  of 
the  singular.  Adopting  this  view  here,  (Ges.  Lex.  says  nothing 
about  the  gender),  then  i<^n  is  in  due  order.  But  it  is  a  mere 
copula  here  =  w,  as  often  elsewhere  in  this  book.  In  this  way 
the  version  above  is  justified.  But  we  may  take  another  way, 
and  yet  arrive  at  a  like  conclusion.  We  may  translate  thus :  who 
is  nets  and  snares  as  to  her  heart,  i.  e.  '2h  is  in  the  Ace.  of  the  man- 
ner or  the  respect  in  which  she  is  snares,  etc.  So  Herz. ;  although 
he  prefers  making  &<'iJ7"^r:iS;  the  Ace,  and  rendering  it  thus :  in  re- 
spect to  whom.  —  m'lJ ,  goodly,  pleasing.  —  Caught  by  her,  refers  to 
the  nets  and  snares.  The  hands  are  called  chains,  for  the  obvious 
reason  that  they  are  employed  in  fondling  and  embracing,  and 
thus  bind  the  captive  paramour. 

(27)  See!  this  have  I  found,  saith  Coheleth,  [adding]  one  to  another  in 
order  to  find  out  the  computation. 

h5<"i  demards  special  attention,  =  look  well  to  what  follows. 
It  is  stronger  than  nsn ,  ecce  I  —  nt ,  this,  viz.  what  follows  in  the 
next  verse.  —  Thrip  JTi^x  is,  in  all  probability,  wrongly  divided. 
The  n  should  be  attached  to  rbnp,  as  it  is  in  12  :  8.  Being  an 
appellative  it  may  take  the  article,  if  the  writer  pleases,  for  the 


226  Chap.  VH.  28. 

sake  of  emphasis  ;  and  being  used  as  a  proper  name,  the  article 
may,  as  is  usual,  be  omitted.  It  is  without  it  in  1  :  1,  2,  12.  12:9, 
10.  But  it  is  always  masc,  which  speaks  decidedly  against  S"."^  r^  j 
and  shows  that  the  verb  should  be  "i^x .  —  rnx?  nnx  lit.  one  to 
one,  without  anything  to  connect  or  govern  the  phrase.  It  is  em- 
ployed adverbially  therefore,  (like  our  one  hy  one),  and  of  course 
implies  before  it  a  verb  or  Part,  which  signifies  adding  or  joining, 
e.  g.  Db.  —  i^^'ob,  in  order  to  fold,  where  b  has  a  special  signifi- 
cance, indicating  object  or  design.  —  "ps^^ri  speaks  for  itself  here, 
by  reason  of  the  context.  It  means  account,  reckoning,  or  computa- 
tion.    This  he  has  disclosed  in  the  next  verse. 

(28)  What  my  soul  1ms  hitherto  sought,  and  yet  I  have  not  found,  (one 
man  of  a  thousand  I  have  found),  but  a  woman  among  all  these  have  I  not 
found. 

My  sold  hath  sought,  intensive,  the  inner  man,  differing  how- 
ever from  /only  in  intensity  of  expression.  —  f^T^T^?  ^^'^  Piel,  but 
the  Dagh.  in  p  is  omitted,  because  of  the  vocal  Slieva  it  would 
make,  §  20.  3.  b.  A  rapid  or  abridged  enunciation  is  the  object 
of  such  omissions,  for  the  word  is  thus  shortened ;  as  we  say 
honoured  for  honoured.  —  Instead  of  saying  immediately  what  that 
is  which  he  has  not  found,  he  throws  in  the  cutting  or  ironical 
remark,  in  the  way  of  parenthesis,  which  tells  us  what  he  has  found, 
viz.  one  man  of  a  thousand.  Of  course,  he  means  one  upright 
man,  one  who  is  not  a  fool.  —  But  a  woman,  )  adversative,  §  152. 
B.  1.  3.  Lex.  1  2.  —  Among  all  these,  not  among  all  these  thousand 
men,  for  there  of  course  he  would  not  look  for  the  woman  in 
question,  but  among  all  this  number,  or  suck  a  number,  viz.  among 
a  thousand.  —  As  d'lx  means  a  just  man,  by  the  exigency  of  the 
passage,  so  niL'x  (=  ndDX  fem.  of  dsx)  means  an  upright  woman. 
Sentiment :  '  Just  men  are  exceedingly  scarce  ;  just  women  still 
more  so.* 

[That  Coheleth  means  here  to  include  all  women,  and  to  pass  such  a  judg- 
ment on  all,  should  not  be  admitted  unless  his  language  obliges  us  to  admit 
it.  He  was  too  keen  an  observer  not  to  know,  that  a  sweeping  proposition 
of  this  nature  cannot  be  true.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  women  described  in  v. 
26,  are  such  as  are  given  to  amorous  dalliance.  And  among  these  it  would 
be  difficult,  at  any  time,  to  find  one  cjood  woman.  Such,  indeed,  may  become 
penitent;  but  then  they  no  longer  belong  to  the  class  described.      Who,  then, 


Chap.  VIL  28.  227 

are  the  thousand?  Specially,  as  applied  to  7nen,  to  what  sort  or  class  of  men 
do  the  thousand  belong  ?  Nothing  is  said  to  show  this.  Are  they  then,  like 
the  women,  of  that  class  which  are  given  to  wantonness  1  If  so,  how  could 
even  one  just  or  good  man  be  found  among  them  1  This  consideration 
seems  to  compel  us  to  conclude,  that  the  thousand  men  are  such  as  belong  to 
ordinary  men.  We  say  in  like  cases  :  '  We  must  take  them  as  they  come.' 
But  still,  this  is  not  quite  so  certain  here  as  it  seems  to  be.  In  the  East, 
Avhere  polygamy  and  concubinage  have  ever  been  practised,  and  ever  stood 
even  in  high  repute,  there  might  be  men  of  strong  sexual  propensities,  who 
still  did  not  violate  any  law  of  the  land,  or  even  law  of  Moses,  in  indulging 
them  somewhat  freely ;  for  these  allowed  polygamy.,  and  did  not  condemn, 
except  indirectly,  the  practice  of  even  concubinage.  It  was  not,  therefore,  in 
the  eyes  of  men,  any  sacrifice  of  character  with  them,  when  a  man  gratified 
to  a  large  extent  his  sexual  propensities.  Some  among  this  class  of  men 
might  be  found,  of  a  character  otherwise  substantially  good.  But  very  dif- 
ferent was  the  condition  of  icomen.  They  must  adhere  to  one  man,  and  could 
not  have  intercourse  with  any  others  without  a  total  loss  of  character  and 
standing.  Among  these,  amorous  dalliance  with  many  showed  an  unspeak- 
able debasement  of  character.  It  might  be,  then,  a  matter  of  course  that 
Coheleth  could  find  no  one  of  a  good  character  among  them.  But  with 
men.  to  wliom  variety  of  paramours  was  no  reproach,  (I  speak  only  of  inter- 
course Avith  wives  and  concubines  by  compact),  his  experience,  or  the  result 
of  his  investigations,  was  different.  I  do  not  see  to  what  ,^^X"b!D  can  refer, 
except  to  the  women  described  in  v.  26.  Certainly  they  are  the  class  who,  of  all 
human  beings,  are  the  most  conspicuous  examples  of  folly ;  and  for  examples 
of  tliis  sort  Coheleth  is  seeking.  With  the  men  too  of  similar  propensities, 
the  case  is  not  much  better.  One  for  a  thousand  is  a  small  proportion  indeed. 
Of  course,  however,  the  exact  number  makes  nothing  here  ;  for  the  real  idea 
to  be  conveyed  is  simply,  that  examples  of  righteousness  or  goodness  are 
exceedingly  rare  among  men  ;  and  among  women  of  a  particular  class,  they 
are  not  at  all  to  be  found. 

Such,  then,  is  the  result  of  his  'rp53 ,  in  order  to  find  out  the  nature  and 
extent  o?  folly.  Hitzig  seems  to  represent  him  as  expecting  to  find  at  least 
some  of  a  good  character  among  women,  and  as  being  disappointed  in  not 
finding  them.  Says  he,  more  suo :  "Er  denkt  zu  fischen  und  krebst,"  i.  e.  he 
designs  to  catch  Jish,  and  catches  crabs.  But  —  levity  apart  —  his  disappoint- 
ment could  not  be  great,  at  not  finding  them  among  the  class  of  women 
whom  he  describes.  He  was  grieved,  rather  than  disappointed.  Grievous 
too  the  result  of  his  search  among  men  must  have  been.  Yet  if  ivisdom  can 
be  better  known  by  comparing  its  opposite,  he  has  found  full  scope  in  this 
case  for  the  investigation  of  it,  for  folly  in  abundance  did  he  meet  with. 

The  use  which  has  sometimes  been  made  of  vs.  26—28,  (by  applying 
them  to  all  of  the  female  sex  in  the  way  of  reproach,  or  else  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  the  extravagance  and  paradoxical  character  of  the  book  before 
us),  seems  to  have  no  solid  ground.  The  writer  designs  to  say,  tliat  when 
he  searched  ahar  folly  and  madness,  which  is  wickedness  ("\L'^),  lie  found  the 


228  Chap.  YH.  29. 

most  complete  exemplification  in  Avanton  icomen,  and  that  he  met  with  little 
better  success  as  to  finding  any  that  were  good  and  just  among  men.  Some 
refer  the  1000  women  to  Solomon's  700  wives  and  300  concubines,  1  K. 
11:3.  But  then,  who  are  the  1000  men  in  such  a  case  ?  Coheleth  might 
indeed  look  to  the  Harem  of  Solomon,  with  full  confidence  of  finding  folly 
there  in  its  highest  measure,  specially  after  what  is  told  us  concerning  his 
heatheii  women,  in  1  K.  11:  1 — 8.  But  I  apprehend  the  use  of  thousand  in 
this  case  is  only  in  the  common  way,  often  met  with,  of  designating  a  large 
and  indefinite  number. 

But  whence  this  overwhelming  and  universal  extension  of  folly  and  prof- 
ligacy ?  Is  this  one  of  the  arrangements  of  Providence,  so  often  spoken  of  and 
appealed  to  by  him  1     This  is  a  question  which  he  meets  by  strong  denial.] 

(29)  See !  this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  made  man  upright,  and  they 
have  sought  out  many  devices. 

In  the  Heb.,  the  order  in  the  first  clause  is  different  from  that 
of  the  version.  It  runs  thus  :  Only  see  !  this  have  I  found,  rtx"i 
being  a  parenthetic  interjection.  —  "inb  seems  to  be  placed  first 
here  in  the  Hebrew,  because  of  its  emphatic  meaning.  —  This 
refers  to  what  follows.  —  ci'ixfi ,  generic,  mankind.  —  ^'&^  is  truly 
given  by  upright.  It  means  Justus,  prohus,  integer.  —  They  have 
sought  out,  i.  e.  men,  mankind  have,  etc.  —  ^  ^'ps ,  without  Dagh. 
in  p;  see  above  on  v.  28.  —  niDh\L'ri ,  has  probably  a  Dagh.  diri- 
mens  or  euphonic,  as  it  is  called ;  for  nouns  of  this  form  do  not 
elsewhere  exhibit  such  a  Dagh.  e.  g.  nis'nst,  etc.  This  Dagh.  is 
inserted,  where  a  sharp  tone  of  the  preceding  syllable  is  required, 
so  that  Dagh.  causes  the  final  consonant  of  that  syllable  to  be 
more  distinctly  pronounced,  §  20.  2,  comp.  Ewald,  Gramm.  §  92. 
\.  c.  a.  Gesenius  (Lex.)  has  not  noticed  the  Dagh.,  and  of  course 
he  regarded  it  as  belonging  to  the  proper  form  itself  of  the  word. 
It  may  be  so ;  but  from  analogy  it  seems  hardly  probable.  — 
Devices  means  of  course  here,  evil  devices,  aries  malae.  To  him- 
self alone  then  must  man  look,  as  the  source  of  all  his  follies  and 
sins.  God  has  indeed  arranged  all  things,  and  made  them  what 
they  are ;  and  one  of  these  things  is,  that  men  should  be  free 
agents,  and  therefore  the  authors  of  their  own  wickedness.  How 
it  came  that  God  created  man  peccable,  is  a  question  which 
Coheleth  does  not  bring  to  view,  and  probably  one  on  which  he 
did  not  speculate.  It  might  be  well  for  the  church,  if  there  were 
more  who  followed  his  example.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  in 
him  any  fine-spun  theories  or  speculations  of  such  a  nature. 


CiiAP.  VIII.  1.  229 


§  12.    Men  sin  from   a  variety  of  causes ;  punishment  will  not 
always  be  delayed. 

Chap.  VIII.  1—17. 


[If  men  arc  not  made  sinners  by  their  Creator,  then  how  came  men  to  sin  ? 
This  question  naturally  arises  at  once,  in  the  mind  of  tlie  reader.  There 
seem  to  be  three  reasons  given  in  the  sequel,  why  they  fall  into  sin  ;  (1)  Men 
often  sin  througli  fear  of  rulers,  by  obeying  their  unjust  commands,  when 
they  know  them  to  be  so,  vs.  1 — 5.  (2)  They  sin  because  judgment  and 
punishment  are  delayed,  v.  1 1,  seq.  (3)  They  sin  because  oftentimes  the 
wicked  fare  as  well  as  the  just,  v.  14  seq.  In  regard  to  this  last  matter, 
there  is  undoubtedly  a  mystery  of  Providence,  which  is  beyond  the  limits 
of  our  inquiries  or  knowledge,  vs.  16,  17. 

The  course  of  tliought,  more  minutely  investigated,  runs  thus :  Truly 
wise  must  he  be,  who  can  explain  difficult  matters,  viz.  such  as  he  had  been 
stating.  But  there  is  a  spurious  wisdom.  This  bids  unreserved  submission 
to  the  commands  of  rulers,  whether  they  be  good  or  evil.  Resistance,  it 
suggests,  is  dangerous  j  prudence,  therefore,  dissuades  from  it,  vs.  1 — 4. 
But  it  should  be  remembered,  that  there  is  a  judgment-period  hanging  over 
all  evil-doers,  although  no  one  can  tell  when  it  will  take  place.  Death  is 
inevitable  to  all,  and  wickedness  cannot  rescue  the  sinner  from  it,  vs.  5 — 8. 
The  wicked  do  indeed  sometimes  reign  over  and  oppress  the  good  Yet  still, 
they  will  die  and  be  buried  without  the  city,  and  will  be  soon  forgotten.  Op- 
pression is  grievous.  But  although  judgment  slumbers,  and  men  grow  bold  in 
sin  because  of  this,  yet,  let  the  wicked  do  wickedly  ever  so  long,  it  shall  be 
well  with  the  righteous,  at  last,  and  to  the  wicked  it  shall  be  ill,  vs.  9—13.  To 
this  an  objection  immediately  presoits  itself:  '  The  righteous  share  the  doom 
of  the  wicked,  and  to  the  wicked  Aills  the  lot  of  the  righteous.  There  is 
nothing  left  then  for  the  latter,  but  to  enjoy  all  they  can  of  the  good  things  of 
life,  vs.  14,  15.  But  in  procuring  the  means  of  this  erjoynient,  much  and 
grievous  toil  is  necessary,  so  that  it  is  of  little  account,  v.  16.  This,  the  writer 
concedes,  must  be  acknowledged;  and  he  allows  that  we  can  offer  no 
adequate  solution  of  the  mystery,  because  the  ways  of  Providence  arc  beyond 
our  knowledge,  v.  17.] 

(1 )  Who  is  like  the  wise  man  ?  Who  understandeth  the  exphtnation  of  a 
saying?  The  wisdom  of  a  man  makcth  his  face  to  shine,  but  haughtiness 
disfigureth  his  face. 

Hitzig  thinks,  that  the  first  clause  is  the  language  of  exultation 

over  the  discovery  he  had  made,  as  announced  in  the  preceding 

verse.     My  convictions  are  of  a  different  kind.     It  seems  to  me 

more  natural  to  suppose,  that  the  ditiiculties  which  he  had  just 

20 


230  Chap.  YIII.  1. 

been  stating,  and  had  left  unsolved,  moved  him  to  exclaim  as  he 
does.  The  questions  seem  to  amount  to  this :  '  Who,  like  a  wise 
man,  can  explain  the  difliculties,  or  solve  the  questions,  that  arise 
in  respect  to  wisdom  V  —  -=nn2 ,  usually  written  in  such  cases,  as 
trrns ,  i.  e.  the  article  is  usually  dropped,  and  the  3  normally  takes 
its  vowel,  §  35.  n.  2.  See  like  cases  of  this  punctuation  in  the 
later  books,  (for  in  them  only,  almost  without  exception,  is  it 
found),  e.  g.  Ezek.  40:  25.  47:22.  2  Chron.  10:7.  25:  10. 
29  :  27.  Neh.  9  :  19.  12:  38.  The  article  specifies  a  particular 
man,  viz.  the  man  wise  enough  to  make  explanation.  But  of 
what  ?  Of  a  nn'n  ,  word^  maxim^  ajjothegm,  etc.  But  what  one  ? 
I  see  no  answer  to  this  but  one,  viz.  the  ^n-n  exhibited  in  the 
sentence  or  apothegm  (such  I  take  it  to  be)  that  follows.  AVhat 
follows  this  apothegm  does  not  point  us  to  any  explanation  of 
preceding  difficulties,  namely,  those  in  Chap.  VII.  Wisdom  then 
will  be  shown,  in  case  a  proper  explanation  of  the  apothegm  can 
be  made  out.  In  fact,  it  needs  some  wisdom  to  make  it  out ;  as 
the  endless  variety  of  opinions  about  the  latter  clause  may  serve 
to  show.  —  Makeih  his  face  to  shine,  i.  e.  exhilarates  him,  makes 
his  face  to  glow  with  pleasure  and  satisfaction  ;  comp.  like  modes 
of  expression,  in  Num.  6 :  25.  Ps.  4 :  7.  Job  29  :  24.  —  r:E  t3> 
has  been  long  debated.  The  Hebrews  used  d^db  I'J  to  denote  a 
man  of  impudent  face  or  of  stern  visage ;  also  Ci'^rs  VJT}  to  signify : 
he  made  up  an  impudent  face,  (as  we  express  it).  i'J  is  from  the 
same  root  (nr),  and  might  have  the  same  meaning  also,  if  this 
word  and  the  next  after  it  constitute  a  common  case  of  const, 
and  Gen.  after  it.  But  this  we  cannot  well  admit,  for  v:q  here 
makes  a  relative  meaning  by  virtue  of  the  suffix,  quite  different 
from  that  which  c^rQ  alone  would  have.  The  conclusion  then 
must  be,  that  i'J  is  Nam.  and  subject,  and  that  T^rQ  is  Ace.  gov- 
erned by  the  verb  which  follows.  Then  we  take  the  two  last 
clauses  as  constructed  alike,  and  we  have  a  facile  sense :  llie 
wisdom  of  a  man  enlightens  his  face,  and  Jtaughtiness  or  iinpudence 
disfigures  his  face.  —  Nrd'^ ,  as  pointed,  is  in  Pual  Imperf.,  the  X 
being  used  for  n  ;  for  so  in  2  K.  25  :  29,  we  have  xrJ  for  nrd  ,  and 
in  Jer.  52  :  33  (the  same  expression).  See  §  74.  vi.  n.  22.  The 
Seventy  translate  faO/jntTai,  shall  be  hated,  and  so  must  have  read 
NSi;^7  (in  Niph.  and  with  Si7i  instead  of  Shin).  The  true  point- 
ing seems  plainly  to  be  i<3d';'  (Piel  of  n3",r),  with  i<  for  n  as  above 


CiiAP.  yill.  1.  231 

stated.  The  comparison  or  rather  the  antithesis,  shows  that,  as 
in  the  first  ease  the  action  of  the  verb  falls  on  V3S,  so  in  the 
second  case  the  same  is  to  be  said,  as  to  the  second  1-^:5 .  The 
one  bn'ff/dens,  the  other  disfgures.  The  antithesis  is  not  indeed 
closely  pressed,  for  then  we  should  have,  as  the  opposite  of  n^xn , 
the  verb  T)^':3nn  darkens.  Nor  is  the  meaning,  as  found  above,  to 
be  confined  to  a  physical  change  of  the  countenance,  although  the 
trope  is  borrowed  from  this.  By  the  lujht  which  wisdom  sheds, 
we  may  well  understand  the  light  of  life ;  comp.  Job  33  :  20.  Ps. 
56:  14;  comp.  also  P^cc.  7:  12.  On  the  other  hand  iv  {haughty 
disregard)  destroys,  see  v.  8  below.  So  in  Job  14:  20,  ".'^ra  rii"^^ 
refers  to  the  change  of  countenance  which  takes  place  after  death; 
and  this  is  a  striking  illustration  of  our  text,  from  a  writer  con- 
temporary, or  nearly  so,  with  Coheleth.  Sentiment :  '  Wisdom 
preserves  life,  or  imparts  the  light  of  life,  while  haughtiness 
brings  on  the  disfigurement  of  death.'  This  gives  to  the  whole 
apothegm  a  spirited  tone  and  significance  far  above  the  merely 
physical  sense.  But  it  needs,  as  the  author  intimates,  some 
understanding  in  order  to  make  out  a  irs .  It  has  indeed  a  kind 
of  esoteric  meaning,  while  the  literal  sense  is  merely  exoteric, 
and  would  present  no  mystery.  The  whole  conception  seems  to 
have  sprung  from  Job  16  :  15,  16,  q.  v. 

Knob,  renders :  the  gloom  (?)  of  his  countenance  is  changed. 
Ewald :  the  splendour  of  his  countenance  is  doubled,  making  the 
verb  from  nrr  to  repeat,  (but  splendour  is  a  manufactured  sense 
for  vj)  ;  Herzf. :  his  stern  visage  is  changed ;  all  of  them  mis- 
taking the  relation  of  i"  and  C^^s .  llitzig  adopts  the  meaning 
given  above,  and  to  him  1  owe  the  best  arguments  in  its  favour. 
He  has  not,  however,  sufficiently  indicated  the  bearing  of  the  sen- 
timent on  what  precedes,  or  its  relation  to  it.  If  the  reader  will 
look  back  to  7 :  11  seq.,  19,  25  seq.,  he  will  readily  perceive  how 
often  and  earnestly  wisdom  is  discussed.  In  the  verse  before  us, 
at  the  close  of  these  discussions,  he  will  see  that  for  wisdom  is 
still  claimed  a  high  place,  like  to  that  asserted  in  7  :  1 2,  but  it  is 
here  more  v-vidly  described.  As  the  opposite  of  this  is  the  Tb 
(haughty  perseverance)  which  refuses  to  receive  and  obey  instruc- 
tion. We  might  perhaps  expect  bro  instead  of  i" ,  since  it  is  the 
direct  antithesis  of  rr^zn .  But  iv  better  characterizes  the  tem- 
per of  mind,  which  leads  men  "  to  seek  out  many  .evil  devices." 


232  Chap.  YIII.  2,  3. 

To  all  this,  the  writer  now  subjoins  the  counsel  which  a  timid 
and  counterfeit  wisdom  gives ;  for  this,  by  contrast,  sets  off  true 
wisdom  to  advantage.     Let  us  hear  this  worldly-wise  man :  — 

(2)  I  keep  the  commandniont  of  the  king;  nnd  so,  bccnu«e  of  tlic  oath  of 
God. 

•"3,  const,  of  r:&,  lit.  mouth,  then  what  the  mouth  utters,  com- 
mand ;  see  Lex.  —  *ibd ,  as  pointed,  is  an  Lnper. ;  but  then  one 
must  of  course  supply  ^^TTTu^  after  "^sx .  With  Ilitzig,  I  would 
point  the  word  ^"qt ,  as  in  v.  5  below.  —  Vri ,  the  1  I  have  ren- 
dered and  so=  and  I  keep  it  hccaiise  of,  etc.  §  152.  B.  23.  —  rrnn^ 
=  propter,  when  h'J  stands  before  it,  see  Lex.  —  The  oath  of  God, 
means  an  oath  in  which  God  is  named  and  called  to  Avitness  the 
transaction,  so  as  to  give  to  it  the  highest  and  most  solemn  sanc- 
tion. Hitzig  says  that  no  such  oaths  to  rulers  are  anywhere 
mentioned  in  Hebrew  antiquity.  But  2  K.  11 :  17,  mentions  a 
n"i"i3  (covenant)  between  the  king  and  people ;  could  this  be 
made  without  the  sanction  of  an  oath?  Ptolemy  Lagi  exacted 
an  oath  from  the  vassal  Jews,  Jos.  Arch.  XII.  1.  Oaths,  we 
know,  were  very  common  among  the  Jews,  when  great  and  sol- 
emn transactions  were  engaged  in  ;  see  Gen.  24 :  2,  3,  comp. 
Gen.  47 :  29.  1  Sara.  12:5.  I  take  it  that  the  oath  of  fealty 
and  obedience  to  the  sovereign  is  the  oath  here  in  question.  The 
oath  of  God,  is  that  in  which  God  is  called  to  witness,  that  he  who 
takes  it  will  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  kijig,  v.  2.  —  Here,  then, 
religion  is  called  in,  to  give  colour  to  the  obligation  of  obedience 
and  loyalty.  But  this  view  of  the  matter  is  repelled  in  v.  5.  I 
see  nothing  here  to  determine  whether  the  king  is  a  foreigner 
or  indigenous  ;  nothing  either  Persian  or  Egyptian. 

(3)  Do  not  hastily  depart  from  his  presence.  Do  not  make  delay  in 
rej^;!rd  to  a  command  which  is  grievous;  for  all  -which  he  doircth,  he  accom- 
j)lihhcth. 

The  two  verbs  bri3tn  and  r^r]  are  so  united  in  the  expression 
and  qualiticatioti  of  one  idea,  (there  is  no  1  between  them),  that 
the  first  is  used  adverbially,  and  so  I  have  translated  it  —  hastily ; 
see  139.  3.5.  l^f^^ri  is  in  Niph.  Imperf ,  and  is  retiexive  =  </o 
not  hurry  thyself  —  '^'^^^"9  -if'om  his  presence  or  his  face.  It  is  not 
the  same  as  Do  not  make  revolt  from  Jam,  or  Do  not  nuke  defec 


Chap.  VIII.  4,  5.  233 

iion.  It  applies  to  such  as  have  personal  intercourse  with  him, 
and  dissuailcs  tlieni  from  testifying  dislike  or  impatience  at  his 
commands  or  orders,  by  an  abrupt  departure  which  will  offend 
him.  —  "I'it.r) ,  delay,  stand  still,  not  an  unfrequent  sense  of  ^^5 ; 
see  Josh.  10  :  13.  1  Sam.  20:  38.  Ezek.  21  :  35,  Lex.  No.  2.  So 
Sept.  also.  —  "nnn  here  is  the  same  as  ^3  in  v.  2,  viz.  command.  — 
S"n  means  grievous,  on  whatever,  or  on  any  ground.  Here  the 
implication,  if  we  advert  to  v.  o,  seems  to  be,  that  the  command 
is  both  wrong  and  burdensome.  Sentiment :  '  Treat  not  lightly 
any  command  of  the  king,  and  hesitate  not  to  obey  it  forthwith, 
let  it  be  what  it  may.'  Then  follows  a  reason  for  prompt  obe- 
dience :  '  The  king  has  unlimited  power  to  enforce  obedience.' 
See  like  descriptions  of  power  applied  to  God,  in  Jon.  1 :  14. 
Job  13:  12. 

(4)  Where  there  is  tlie  word  of  a  king  there  is  iiowcr:  for  who  wi'l  say  to 
him  :  What  doest  thou  ? 

This  repeats,  in  another  form,  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding 
clause.  It  reminds  the  reader,  that  when  the  king  utters  any 
word,  i.  e.  command  or  sentence,  there  is  lodged  with  him  power 
to  enforce  its  execution  ;  and  therefore  resistance  or  neglect  would 
be  folly.  For  the  last  phrase,  which  challenges  all  opposition,  see 
again  Jon.  1:14.  Job  23 :  13. 

Thus  far  the  man  of  prudential  wisdom.  We  shall  now  see  in 
what  estimation  Coheleth  holds  such  reasonings. 

(5)  He  wlio  obcyetli  the  command,  will  iiave  no  concern  about  the  grievous 
word ;  but  the  heart  of  a  wise  man  wiil  take  cognizance  of  time  and  judgment. 

"T^id,  being  a  participle,  supplies  its  own  subject  —  he  who,  or 
whoever,  amj  one  who.  —  «^^^'2 ,  command,  mandate,  explains  the 
preceding  nn-i. —  'j^2  means,  in  both  clauses,  to  take  knowledge  of, 
in  the  sense  of  caring  for,  having  regard  to,  or  looking  well  to  ;  see 
Gen.  39  :  6.  Prov.  27  :  23,  wliich  make  this  meaning  very  plain. 
—  nr", ,  ^  but,  adversative,  see  Lex.  i  No.  2.  Time  means  of  course 
some  future  time,  which  will  bring  judgment  with  it.  See  the 
same  declaration  in  3  :  17  ;  and  virtually  the  same  in  5  :  8.  11:9. 
12  :  14.  The  wise  man  who  anticipates  this,  will  not  yield  obedi- 
ence to  commands  which  l)id  him  to  sin,  v^  -13- .  He  fears  divine 
displeasure  more  than  a  monarch's  frowns.  There  is  no  true 
20* 


234  CHAr.  YIII.  6.  7. 

wisdom  in  doing  evil  to  please  a  king,  avIio  is  but  an  erring  man. 
when  that  deed  displeases  the  King  of  kings. 

I  forbear  to  discuss  the  various  opinions  in  relation  to  this  pas- 
sage, which  may  be  found  in  Knobel,  Heiligst.,  and  others.  They 
are  too  loose  and  conjectural  to  need  confutation.  Hitzig  seems 
to  have  hit  the  true  mark  ;  at  least,  my  own  views  coincide  with 
his. 

(6)  For  to  every  undertaking,  there  is  a  tinie  and  judgment;  for  the  evil 
of  man  is  great  upon  him. 

vsn,  in  the  same  sense  as  in  3  :  1,  viz.  undertaking^  negotiiim. 
The  existence  of  an  appointed  time  for  judgment,  assumed  in  the 
preceding  verse,  is  afHrmed  here.  But  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse  presents  some  difficulty.  —  The  evil  of  man,  means  here,  that 
which  he  commits  or  does  ;  for  cognizance  in  judgment  concerns 
only  this,  and  not  the  evils  which  befall  him.  —  Is  great  upon  him, 
means,  weighs  heavily  upon  him  ;  for  ns'n ,  in  such  a  connection,  is 
explained  in  Gen.  18  :  20,  by  "li^^  '^'^t^j  ^'*  ^'^^'^  heavy;  and  so  in 
Is.  24  :  20,  transgression  rx^h-s  "i33,  is  heavy  on  it,  viz.  the  land.  In 
Gen.  4:  13,  Cain  says,  that  "his  iniquity  is  greater  N^'i': -  ,  than 
he  can  hear,  or  carryP  All  these  phrases  render  the  design  of 
our  text  clear.  Sentiment :  '  There  will  be  a  time  of  judgment, 
because  the  evil  which  man  commits  is  so  great  that  it  presses 
heavily  upon  him.'  rh'j  indicates  what  is  burdensome  to  one, 
Lex.  hv,  I.  y.  The  "^3 ,  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause,  is  of  course 
aausal,  i.  e.  judgment  is  necessary,  because  evil-doing  is  so  frequent 
and  excessive.  The  scriptural  idea  of  the  appi'opriate  time  for 
punishment  is  this,  viz.  that  it  is  the  period  when  iniquity  is  full, 
or  heavy ;  comp.  Gen.  14:16.  f)an.  8 :  23.  Matt.  23 :  32.  1  Thes. 
2  :  1 6.     It  is  the  same  in  our  text. 

(7)  For  no  one  knov/etli  wliat  shall  take  ])lace;  for  who  can  tell  when  ir 
shall  take  plaee  ? 

The  ground  of  the  connection  with  the  preceding  verse  by  the 
causal  "13  is  not  discerned  at  once,  by  the  reader.  But  a  little 
consideration  seems  to  show  what  that  ground  is.  Evidently,  the 
Avriter  means  to  show  the  sinner,  that  there  is  no  chance  of  escape 
from  the  judgment  in  question;  for  since  no  man  can  know  the 
.future,  he  cannot  know  that  the  judgment  will  not  come  ;  and 


Chap.  VIII.  8.  235 

since  he  cannot  know  when  the  judgment  will  come,  therefore  he 
cannot  take  any  precautions  to  avoid  it.  The  "^s  before  the  last 
clause  is  also  causal,  and  may  be  regarded  as  coordinate  with  the 
preceding  one,  or  as  growing  out  of  the  clause  immediately  pre- 
ceding it.  If  we  choose  the  latter,  the  sentiment  would  stand 
thus:  'The  future  no  one  can  foretell, ybr  ("S)  he  cannot  even 
name  a  time  when  this  or  that  shall  happen.'  But  as  this  does 
not  run  quite  smoothly  in  respect  to  logic,  perhaps  the  other 
method  of  coordination  is  to  be  preferred.  (So  Ilitzig.)  —  *"*^!n2  , 
when,  which  meaning  is  quite  common;  see  Lex.  —  The  next 
verse  asserts  still  more  positively  the  punishment  of  the  sinner. 

(8)  No  man  liath  power  over  the  wind,  to  restrain  the  wind ;  and  none  hath 
power  in  the  day  of  death,  for  there  is  no  discharge  in  this  warfare,  and  wick- 
edness cannot  deliver  tliose  to  whom  it  belongs. 

nn  here  has  more  usually  been  rendered  spirit.  But  if  this 
were  meant,  it  must  be  written  inn2,  over  his,  i.  e.  his  own,  spirit^ 
and  must  then  mean  either  his  vital  hreath,  or  the  spirit  of  life 
which  animates  him.  But  if  spirit  mean,  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, his  immaterial  soul,  the  passage  must  be  understood  to 
apply  only  to  his  final  departure,  and  to  mean  that  power  is  want- 
ing to  keep  back  the  soul,  when  it  is  about  to  take  its  flight ;  for 
in  many  other  respects  man  has  power  over  his  spirit,  for  "  he 
ruleth  it,''  Prov.  25  :  28.  IG:  32.  As  to  having  power  over  the 
wind,  see  in  11  :  5.  Prov.  30  :  4.  John  3  :  8.  The  same  word 
{rvn)  means  both  wind  and  spirit ;  which  may  be  a  reason  for 
fixing  upon  this  object  of  comparison,  viz.  the  wind.  The  course 
of  thought  seems  to  be  this  :  '  If  you  have  no  power  over  the 
natural  nil,  how  can  you  have  any  over  the  more  subtile  and 
invisible  HmI  of  a  human  being.  If  you  cannot  keep  back  the 
former,  how  can  you  expect  to  restrain  the  latter  ?' —  V'^V^!  is  the 
later  form  of  13"**!^  >  ^"<i  u^^^fl  "^  the  way  of  variety.  —  Day  of 
death  means  o^  decease,  i.  e.  of  natural  death.  So  his  day  is  used 
in  Job  15:  32.  1  Sam.  20:  10.  —  rx2n,  lit.  of  the  death  ==  his 
death,  and  being  a  particular  specific  day,  it  takes  the  article. 
So  the  Greeks  often  substitute  the  article  in  place  of  a  pronoun. 
—  No  discharge  in  the  warfare  (lit.)  =  this  or  his  warfare  ;  for  so 
the  article  makes  it  mean.  In  other  wars,  there  are  frequent  fur- 
loughs  and   dismissions ;  here   none.  —  The   design  of  all   this 


236  CiiAr.  VIII.  9,  10. 

figurative  language  comes  out  at  last  in  plain  words,  at  the  close : 
Wickedness  cannot  deliver  its  possessors,  viz.  those  to  whom  it 
belongs,  or  (in  other  words)  those  who  commit  it. 

(9)  All  this  have  I  seen,  and  I  gave  my  attention  to  every  deed  whicli  is 
done  under  the  sun;  there  is  a  time,  when  one  man  nilcth  over  another  man, 
to  his  own  harm. 

All  this,  viz.  what  is  stated  above,  in  v.  2 — 4,  with  res^ject  to 
rulers.  —  '^^^"^^5  "ins ,  to  give  or  set,  one's  heart,  i.  e.  mind,  to  a 
thing.  —  The  verb  is  Inf.  abs.  employed  as  a  definite  verb  in  the 
Praeter  tense,  §  128.  4.  b.  —  The  "'n'^is'i  here  may  be  taken  for 
seeing  in  the  natural  sense,  i.  e.  all  this  is  what  I  have  been 
witness  to  with  my  own  eyes.  —  n>; ,  05  tiijie  =  sometimes ;  of 
course  d";  is  implied.  —  i^  ,  to  the  harm  of  the  ruler,  or  (as  in  the 
version)  :  to  his  oicn  harm.  In  other  words  :  '  He  has  seen  rulers 
insisting  on  obedience  to  evil  commands ;  and  this,  at  last,  to 
their  own  hurt.'  It  is  shown  above,  v.  5,  that  obedience  to  such 
evil  commands  is  sin,  and  that  it  brings  evil  upon  him  who 
executes  them.  Now  he  subjoins,  that  such  commands  injure 
those  also  who  give  them.  —  rn ,  in  this  case,  means  miscJdef, 
harm ;  as  often  elsewhere. 

(10)  And  then  I  saw  the  wicked  buried,  for  they  had  departed,  even  from 
a  holy  place  did  they  go  away ;  and  then  they  were  ibrgottcn  in  the  cit}'' 
where  they  had  so  done ;  this  too  is  vanity. 

Of  the  numerous  explanations  (widely  difl^ering)  which  are 
before  us,  I  need  not  give  an  account,  as  it  would  occupy  much 
time  and  space.  Enough,  if  adequate  reasons  can  be  given 
for  the  one  which  is  here  adopted.  The  subject  of  vs.  2 — 13  is 
plainly  one  and  the  same,  although  different  aspects  of  it  are 
presented  to  view.  It  is  the  one  subject,  which,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  lay  very  heavily  upon  the  mind  of  Coheleth,  viz. 
the  oppressive  conduct  of  rulers.  Here  he  blames  men  for  flatter- 
ing them,  by  readily  executing  their  wicked  commands.  He 
lets  such  men  know,  that  this  is  a  sin,  and  will  certainly  meet 
with  condign  punishment  in  the  end.  But  now,  in  vs.  9  seq.  he 
is  turning  to  the  rulers  themselves,  Avho  enforce  obedience  to 
such  commands.  His  proposition  (v.  9)  is,  that  it  will  occasion 
their  own  harm,  as  well  as  that  of  others.     The  verse  before  us 


Chap.  VIII.  10.  237 

gives  a  picture  of  the  consequences  which  follow  such  conduct. 
—  '331 ,  lit.  and  in  the  so,  i.  e.  and  then,  or  in  that  state  in  which 
he  was  wliile  contemplating  their  conduct,  as  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  verse.  See  a  clear  case  of  such  a  meaning,  in  Est.  4 : 
16,  see  also  Ges.  Lex.  's.  3.  b.  He  sees  the  wicked  rulers  dead 
and  buried;  which  does  not  necessarily  import  (as  some  would 
have  it),  "  with  funeral  honours  ;  "  for  so  Ileiligs.  and  others  take 
it.  But  it  is  said  of  all,  of  good  men  and  evil  men,  of  those  hon- 
oured and  those  dishonoured,  that  they  are  buried.  So  Ahab  and 
Jezebel,  Gog  and  Magog,  are  buried.  To  lie  unburied  is  indeed 
dishonour ;  but  buried  is  not  the  necessary  antithesis  to  this,  in 
such  a  way  that  it  must  mean  honourably  buried.  It  means 
merely  and  simply  inhumed,  entombed.  —  "n:si  ,  for  they  had  de- 
parted, gone  away ;  Pluperf.  §  124.  2.  i<'ia  is  frequently  used 
to  designate  the  setting  of  the  sun,  and  is  so  generic,  that  'progress 
or  motion  in  any  direction  is  occasionally  designated  by  it.  It 
may  be,  that  nb^:?  ri"^3  (see  12:  5)  is  implied  after  it  here,  i.  e. 
the  perpetual  home  to  which  they  go ;  but  this  is  not  necessary  in 
order  to  make  out  the  sense.  Like  T\^r\ ,  it  may  sometimes  mean 
departure,  viz.  to  another  w'orld ;  as  is  plain  in  the  case  of  apply- 
ing the  word  to  the  setting  sun.  The  common  idea  of  the  vei'b 
Nis ,  is  that  of  entering  into  any  house  (for  example),  or  city, 
place,  etc. ;  and  such  an  implication  is  probably  designed  for  the 
word  here.  The  wicked  had  gone  [to  their  final  abode].  The 
idea  of  entering  into  rest,  (as  in  Is.  57  :  2),  is  not  at  all  implied 
here ;  for  there  it  is  predicated  expressly  of  the  righteous,  and 
Dibui  follows  on  after  the  verb  JX"Ia  .  The  whole  phrase  is  exactly 
like  our  buried  and  gone  ;  for  we  speak  thus  of  a  man  who  has 
entirely  and  finally  quitted  all  earthly  scenes.  I  have  rendered 
the  1  before  1X3  by  for,  as  standing  in  a  kind  of  apodosis,  and 
being  equivalent  to  nam  or  quia  ;  see  Lex.  ^ ,  No.  4.  —  Even 
from  a  holy  phice  did  they  go.  Not  from  the  temple,  for  then  we 
should  have  ^'ijsn,  but  from  a  holy  place,  (the  article  being 
omitted  in  order  to  avoid  giving  a  wrong  sense).  The  next 
clause  shows  lioly  -place  to  be  the  city,  i.  e.  Jerusalem,  (called, 
down  to  the  present  hour,  the  Holy  by  all  its  neighbours). — 
•iz^n^,  (in  pause),  Piel,  which,  in  actual  usage,  diflers,  as  to 
sense  in  this  case,  nothing  from  the  conjugation  Kal ;  generally 
Kal  and  Piel  are  the  same  here,  and  there  is  only  now  and  then 


238  Chap.  VIIL  11. 

a  case  of  the  latter,  where  hahilude  or  intensity  h  implied.  Hitzig 
proposes  ^2'^n;^  (Kal),  and  to  translate  it  perished.  But  there  is 
no  need  of  this  new  pointing ;  nor  does  the  meaning  seem  to  be 
what  he  makes  it  here.  The  clause  is  a  climactic  one.  Not 
only  did  they  depart^  but  even  from  the  holy  city,  where  they  had 
lived,  and  reigned,  and  oppressed,  they  went  away,  i.  e.  their 
departure  was  made  from  the  city,  by  their  being  carried  out  of  it 
in  order  to  be  buried  ;  as  indeed  all  the  dead  were.  —  And  then 
(^  and  so,  and  then)  they  were  forgotten  in  the  city ;  in  other 
words,  no  monument  was  erected  to  them,  no  lamentation  made 
over  them,  and  therefore  they  were  forgotten  ;  see  2  Chron.  35 : 
24,  25,  and  comp.  Jer.  22 :  18,  19.  — ^'rt<  may  be  rendered  where 
(Lex.  s.  V.  No.  6),  or  wJio.  I  prefer  the  former. — rL"r-",3,  with 
a  Maq.,  showing  that  the  two  words  are  closely  united,  and  thus 
deciding  that  "jS ,  in  the  view  of  punctators,  is  the  particle  so  here, 
and  not  '|3  right  or  just.  The  clause,  tJiey  had  so  done,  refers  to 
what  is  said  of  them  in  vs.  2 — 4,  where  the  subject  commences. 
In  other  words :  Their  oppression  prevented  the  erection  of  a 
monument  to  their  memory,  by  the  hatred  which  it  excited,  and 
caused  them  to  be  huried  in  oblivion.  "  The  triumphing  of  the 
wicked  is  short." 

This  interpretation  not  only  makes  the  whole  passage  plain 
and  perspicuous,  but  it  falls  in  entirely  with  the  tenor  of  the  dis- 
course. Hitzig  and  others  render  ^b^""')3  by  had  done  rightly  or 
justly,  and  thus  make  two  classes  of  men  to  be  mentioned  in  the 
verse.  Nothing  calls  for  this,  and  the  tenor  of  the  context  is 
clearly  against  it.  Our  Eng.  version  favours  the  meaning  which 
I  have  given.  The  writer  designs  to  say  that,  even  in  Jerusa- 
lem, he  had  found  examples  of  oppression  among  rulers,  and  had 
seen  the  consequences  of  it,  in  the  dishonour  and  oblivion  which 
they  brought  upon  their  own  name  and  memory. 

(11)  Because  sentence  iigainst  an  evil  work  is  not  speedily  executed, 
therefore  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  within  them  is  fully  set  to  do  evil. 

t^ns  is  rnasc.  (see  the  foreign  origin  of  this  late  word  in  the 
Lex.),  and  therefore  demands  the  preceding  word  to  be  pointed 
nbr? ,  i.  e.  the  Part.,  (and  not  a  verb  in  the  Praet.  as  ri'w"3  is). 
As  this  word  is  preceded  by  'i^x  ,  it  must  be  a  participle,  for  -pj^ 
stands  not  before  definite  verbs,  and  so  it  must  be  n"4:r3 .     Then 


Chap.  VIII.  12.  239 

again,  cjrs  lias  a  pause-accent  on  it,  and  stands  in  the  abs.  form, 
whereas  the  sense  shows,  that  it  is  the  connt.  before  the  following 
Gen.  noun,  and  therefore  should  be  written  Dsrs ,  and  of  course 
not  have  a  pause-accent  on  it.  —  Sentence  against  an  evil  work  is 
our  Eng.  mode  of  expression  ;  sentence  of  a  work  of  evil  is  the 
Hebrew  one  here,  which  means  of  course  what  I  have  expressed 
in  the  version.  —  riV^n  is  a  noun  in  the  Gen.,  and  has  the  article 
because  it  is  an  abstract  noun,  §  107.  3.  c.  Of  course  nb"?2  is  of 
the  const,  form,  while  it  also  is  a  Gen.  after  the  preceding  noun  ; 
for  the  const,  form  may  be  in  the  Num.,  Gen.,  or  Ace,  as  the  case 
may  demand.  —  The  heart  (33),  i.  e.  the  heart  as  the  seat  of 
thought,  will,  or  desire.  It  strengthens  the  assertion  of  proneness 
to  evil.  —  xb^  ,  Part,  adj.,  lit.  is  full,  i.  e.  full  of  inclination  or 
desire,  or  (as  we  say)  fullg  set.  —  r^ ,  the  adj.  neuter  here,  and 
therefore  used  as  a  noun  ;  it  is  in  pause,  and  its  normal  form 
is  "-1 . 

The  proposition  in  this  verse  is,  to  all  appearance,  general  or 
generic ;  but  under  this  lies  special  reference  to  oppressive  and 
tyrannical  rulers.  Because  punishment  is  jj^otracted,  they  are 
emboldened  to  continue  their  doings.  What  is  said  here  of  them, 
however,  is  true  of  others  also  ;  but  this  need  not  hinder  a  special 
application  of  the  words  to  them.     And  so  of  the  sequel. 

(12)  AlthouL,^li  a  sinuLT  (loc'th  evil  a  hundred  tiiin'S,  nnd  prolontrelli  [his 
days]  for  hinisilf.  yet  I  certainly  know  tliut  it  shall  be  well  to  tliosc  who  fear 
God,  who  eonfimially  fear  before  him. 

*i'rs; ,  although,  wliich,  however,  is  not  a  usual  sense  of  the  word, 
when  a  case  of  concession  occurs,  (Lex.  s.  v.  B.  4)  ;  yet  it  is  suf- 
ficiently vouched  for  by  proximate  meanings  elsewhere.  —  H.zn , 
(Seghol  for  final  Tseri),  see  §  74.  YI.  n.  21.  a;  the  same  form  is 
also  found  in  Ecc.  9:18.  Elsewhere  it  is  i<'^h.  —  rbi',  Part,  in- 
stead of  the  verb,  but  in  the  same  sense  as  the  verb,  and  govern- 
ing the  Ace.  after  it,  instead  of  being  put  in  the  const,  state,  §  132. 
1.  a.  b.  —  rx^  has  the  const,  form,  and  is  an  adverb.  Some  few 
other  cases  occur  of  the  like  kind,  e.  g.  r2'n  etc.  —  fj'i'nx"!.  Part. 
Iliph.  but  absolute,  i.  e.  without  a  complement.  What  then  is  im- 
plied as  its  complement  ?  In  the  next  verse,  n"^:^  Tp'^N;^  would 
seem  to  answer  the  question,  and  make  the  word  mean  the  pro- 
longing of  life.     But  ib,  it  is  said,  stands  in  the  way  of  this. 


240  Chap.  VIIL  13. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  by  his  own  efforts  that  life  is  prolonged  ;  but 
in  this  case  it  seems  to  be  said  that  he  prolongs  something  for  him- 
self, i.  e.  by  his  own  efforts.  Still,  as  the  Dative  is  often  used 
after  verbs  (e.g.  like  ^'"7]'?,  Gen.  12:  1)  which  have  no  comple- 
ment, it  may  possibly  come  under  this  category,  if  the  Hiphil  sense 
does  not  prevent  it.  Hitzig  supplies,  for  the  Ace.  here,  the 
2>'n  m'u:>!  of  the  preceding  verse.  In  favour  of  the  other  construc- 
tion is  the  same  elliptical  use  of  ""''■J*^  in  7:  15,  where  w^iz"^ 
must  plainly  be  the  supplement  ;  and  the  full  form  occurs  here 
in  V.  13.  Conceding  this,  ib  must  be  regarded  as  a  Daiivus  corn- 
modi. —  "IS,  yet^  still;  see  Lex.  —  ^i  profecto,  qualifies  ^"ni'i  (as 
the  Maqqeph  shows),  and  renders  it  intense  =  /  certainly  or 
truly  know.  —  It  shall  he  ivell,  3vj  ,  lit.  there  shall  be  good.  —  Who 
fear  before  him,  repeats  the  idea  of  the  preceding  clause,  for  the 
sake  of  intensity.  The  one  is  a  participle,  and  the  other  a  verb 
in  Kal.  Imperf  of  X";;!^ .  Both  therefore  denote  continued,  habit- 
ual action.  The  repetition,  then,  must  be  for  the  sake  of  intensity. 
Both  phrases  =  those  who  truly  and  habitually  fear  God. 

In  other  words :  '  Whatever  advantage  oppressors  may  gain, 
and  however  great  the  evils  which  they  occasion,  it  remains  true 
after  all,  and  it  is  a  consolation  for  the  oppressed,  that  those  who 
fear  God  shall,  sooner  or  later,  obtain  their  reward.'  In  this  world  ? 
or  in  the  next  ?  The  tenor  of  the  book  is  plainly  against  the  first  ; 
for  the  idea  is  often  repeated  that  "  all  things  come  alike  to  all," 
and  that  "  the  wise  man  and  the  fool  die  alike."  Is  it  in  another 
world,  then  ?  That  seems  to  be  the  necessary  implication,  although 
it  seems  strange  to  us,  that  it  is  not  spoken  out  more  plainly  and 
frequently.  How  difficult  it  is  to  prescribe  rules  for  those,  who 
lived  at  a  time  and  in  a  country  like  those  of  Coheleth  —  is  not 
always  duly  appreciated.  "  The  gospel  [only]  has  brought  life 
and  immortality  to  light." 

(13)  But  to  the  wicked  it  sluUl  not  be  well,  nor  sluill  he  prolong  his  days; 
as  a  shadow  is  he  who  doth  not  fear  God. 

This  is  the  antithesis  of  the  closing  part  of  v.  12.  'The  wicked 
shall  be  punished  —  they  shall  not  prolong  their  days.'  —  The 
accents  join  bas  to  the  preceding  clause,  much  to  the  injury  of 
the  sense.  Altogether  preferable  is  it,  to  join  (as  I  have  done) 
bSfS  to  the  closing  part ;  and  so  Hitzig.     The  copula  is  of  course 


Chap.  VIIL  14,  15.  241 

implied  after  this  word,  so  that  the  sense  is  as  the  version  above 
expresses  it.  —  As  a  shadow,  means  and  designates  the  idea  of 
what  is  brief,  and  fugitive  or  evanescent,  and  also  unsubstantial. 
Shadows  are  constantly  varying,  and  at  most  continue  but  a  little 
time.  Such  shall  be  the  condition  and  destiny  of  the  sinner,  and 
specially  of  oppressive  rulers;  for  he  has  them  still  in  his  eye. 

Here,  then,  seems  to  be  a  very  full  and  firm  conviction  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  retribution,  both  for  the  good  and  for  the  evil.  To 
this,  however,  an  objection  rises  uj),  when  we  come  to  the  exami- 
nation of  actual  occurrences.     He  goes  on  fully  to  state  it. 

(14)  There  is  a  vanity  which  is  done  on  the  earth  ;  there  are  lighteous  to 
whom  it  happens  accord  in*,''  to  the  doinp^ofthe  wicked:  and  there  are  wicked 
to  whom  it  happens  according  to  tlie  doing  ol'  the  righteous  ;  1  said  that  this 
surely  is  vanity. 

tt;^  belongs  to  all  numbers  and  genders.  —  'jy^rq  ,  Iliph.  Part,  of 
rri5 ,  pervenit,  advenit,  comes,  happens.  The  sentiment  coincides, 
with  2  :  19 — 21,  and  specially  with  7:15.  The  fact  itself  cannot, 
indeed,  be  denied.  The  writer  does  not  attempt  to  deny  or  evade 
it.  Still,  he  does  not  take  back  what  he  has  said  in  vs.  12, 13.  But 
if  what  he  meant  to  say  there  was,  to  assert  the  doctrine  of  com- 
plete retribution  in  the  present  world,  then  how  could  he  speak 
as  he  does  here  ?  We  are  forced,  then,  to  conclude,  on  the  ground 
of  consistency,  that  he  must  have  meant  something  more.  —  And 
now,  without  denying  the  allegation  made  in  the  verse  before  us, 
he  goes  on  to  prescribe  what  must  be  done,  in  order  to  obtain  any 
enjoyment  in  a  world  where  such  things  are  constantly  occuri'ing. 
He  comes  again  to  the  oft-repeated  conclusion,  viz.  that  we  must 
seek  for  enjoyment  in  the  sober  and  prudent  use  of  such  good 
things  as  our  toil  may  procure.  After  all,  however,  even  this  toil, 
if  rendered  strenuous,  may  annoy  us  more  than  the  good  is  worth 
which  it  acquires.  Moderation  in  this  is  necessary.  He  finds  his 
ultimate  refuge,  then,  in  implicit  submission  to  an  overruling 
Providence,  whose  ways  are  utterly  beyond  our  investigation. 
This  thought  is  expanded  in  the  coming  chapter. 

(15)  Tiicn  I  praised  enjoyment,  hecanse  there  i<  no  good  to  man  under  the^ 
sun,  hut  to  eat,  and  to  drink,  and  he  joyful ;  for  this  will  cleave  to  him  for  liis 
toil,  during  the  days  of  his  life  which  God  hath  given  hin)  under  the  sun. 

*i^x ,  because,  as  it  often  means,  see  Lex.  —  Under  the  sun,  i.  e. 
21 


242  Chap.  VIII.  16,  17. 

in  the  present  world.  —  tx  "^3 ,  but,  except,  see  Lex.  s.  v.  B.  2.  — 
niTsb ,  neut.  intrans.  verb,  as  also  the  preceding  verbs  are,  in  this 
connection.  —  -3'ib'; ,  Imperf.  Kal  of  nib  with  sufF.  ?i3_ ,  Gramm. 
p.  289.  The  1  is  a  consonant  throughout.  —  ib^v'z ,  for /lis  labour , 
or  in  respect  to  or  on  account  of  his  labour.  We  have  seen  (on  2  : 
24),  that  3  in  this  book,  and  in  the  later  Hebrew,  not  unfre- 
quently  coincides  witlib  in  regard  to  meaning.  —  'its';  ,  Ace.  const., 
the  Ace.  of  ii?ne,  §  116.  2.  Compare  with  this,  what  has  before 
been  said  on  passages  of  the  same  tenor,  viz.  2  :  24.  3  :  12, 13,  22. 
5  :  18.  The  reasoning  stands  thus  :  '  Since  virtue  and  wickedness 
are  both  treated  in  a  way  that  reverses  their  tendency  and  natu- 
ral consequences,  it  follows  that  virtue  does  not  afford  the  certain 
means,  at  all  times,  to  procure  happiness  in  the  present  world. 
But  still,  this  does  not  forbid  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  comforts 
that  toil  can  procure.  Of  this,  one  can  make  sure.'  Yet  the  next 
verse  throws  in  a  caution  against  too  much  reliance  even  on  this. 

(16)  When  I  gave  my  mind  to  know  wisdom,  and  to  consider  the  business 
which  is  done  on  earth  —  that  even  by  day  and  by  night  one  enjoyeth  no 
sleep  with  his  eyes: 

The  verse  is  a  protasis  to  the  next  verse,  and  inseparably  con- 
nected with  it  thus  :  '  When  I  did  so  and  so  —  then  I  perceived, 
etc'  —  rir'nb ,  to  know,  here  in  order  to  know,  i.  e.  acquire  knowl- 
edge of.  —  Tt".*^  j  (^s  before)  negotiwn,  business,  i.  e.  whatever  is 
undertaken  to  be  done.  Specific  here,  and  therefore  it  has  the 
article.  —  Before  "^S  the  preceding  verb  nisfn  is  implied,  but  it 
should  be  put  in  the  past  tense,  viz.  \_I saw']  that,  etc.  —  ri3d  Ace, 
placed  first  in  the  clause  on  account  of  the  stress  here  laid  upon  it. 
—  nxS ,  lit.  seeth,  but  here  experienceth  or  enjoyeth,  as  often  else- 
where. —  But  ivho  seeth  no  sleep  ?  Plainly  it  is  the  man,  who  is 
deeply  engaged  in  the  'i^DS'  {busi7iess)  mentioned  above.  In  other 
words : '  Even  the  enjoying  of  the  fruit  of  toil  is  often  marred,  by 
engaging  too  earnestly  in  it.' 

(17)  Then  I  saw  all  the  work  of  God  —  tliat  man  cannot  find  out  the  work 
which  is  done  under  the  sun;  in  that  which  a  man  may  toil  to  find  out,  he 
will  still  make  no  discovery ;  and  even  if  the  wise  man  should  say  that  he 
knows  it,  he  will  not  be  able  to  discover  it. 

'^n'^X'ni ,  1  then,  here  leading  the  apodosis  or  after-clause.  — 
Work  of  God,  is  what  he  does.     In  the  second  case,  where  after 


Chap.  IX.  1—10.  248 

worh,  God  is  left  out,  it  is  still  the  same  nb:*.^ ,  as  the  article 
shows,  which  refers  to  the  first  nrr's .  — Therefore  nirr? ,  done, 
means  done  hy  God^  who  doeth  all  things  ;  see  9 :  1.  — Vr2  = 
b  "irx2  ,  but  as  it  is  followed  by  another  ^I'iJx,  the  meaning  is 
somewhat  embarrassed.  Ewald  and  others  read  ^rx-bza  ,  in- 
stead of  both  words  now  in  the  text ;  a  more  facile  text,  no  doubt, 
but  not  the  true  one  on  this  account,  bda  is  used  twice  in  Jonah, 
viz.  1:  7,  r2,.comp.  v.  8,  where  it  is  explained  as  =  b  *|';f^<2,  and 
means,  in  each  case,  because  of,  on  account  of.  We  might  so  translate 
here,  and  the  clause  would  run  thus  :  because  that  whatever  a  man 
may  toil  to  find,  etc.  But  it  may  also  be  rendered  as  in  the  version, 
which  runs  somewhat  easier.  —  "irx  is  Ace.  governed  by  h'zv^ .  — 
Nb-i,  1  in  the  apodosis,  yet,  still.  —  Not  eve?!  csnn,  the  ivise  man, 
the  article  by  way  of  eminence. 

In  other  words,  this  matter  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  as 
having  their  respective  lots  reversed,  and  the  insufficiency  of  an 
attempt  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  labour  —  all  this  is  a  matter  too 
deep  for  us  to  fathom.  God  has  kept  the  grounds  of  this  myste- 
rious dispensation  to  himself.  ••'  Who  can  by  searching  find  out 
God?" 


§  13.  Suffering  and  sorrow  the  common  lot  of  all,  both  good 
and  bad.  We  should  look  at  the  brighter  side  of  things,  and  enjoy 
what  we  may. 

Chap.  IX.  1—10. 

[The  9th  chapter  should  not  have  been  dissevered  from  tlie  precedinc;  one, 
with  the  close  of  which  it  is  most  intimately  connected.  He  had  said,  that 
God's  work  is  inscrutable,  and  to  him  mn^t  be  attributed  tlie  arrangement 
of  all  events.  lie  now  says,  that  the  riji^htcous  and  the  wise,  and  all  their 
doin<i:s,  are  at  the  divine  disposal,  and  subjected  to  the  will  of  God,  v.  1.  He 
goes  on  to  developc  more  fully  the  objection  raised  in  8:  14,  ao:ainst  the 
declarations  precedinji^  that  passajre,  respectin<,^  an  adequate  retribution  to 
the  rifrhtcou.'  and  the  wicked.  It  is  now  suiigested  a.i;ain,  that  all  have  one 
common  lot.  whatever  their  character  may  be.  All  men  have  more  or  less 
of  folly,  and  all  die  alike  (vs.  2,  3),  and  when  dead  all  enjoyment  ceases,  and 
they  know  not  anything  more,  vs.  4,  5.  All  sensation  ceases,  and  they 
have  no  more  a  part  to  act  in  life,  v.  6.  The  only  alleviation  is.  that  one 
should  betake  himself  to  enjoy  all  the  innocent  pleasures,  he  can,  while  Provi- 


244  Chap.  IX.  1. 

dence  is  smiling  upon  him,  for  this  is  all  the  earthly  portion  allotted  to  him, 
vs.  7 — 9.  Let  him  do  this  with  energetic  effort,  for  such  and  all  action  is 
speedily  to  cease,  v.  10.  Neither  strength  nor  skill  will  always  command 
success;  that  is  at  the  disposal  of  a  I'ower  ahove,  v.  11.  Man  cannot  fore- 
see his  misfortunes,  and  is  often  and  unexpectedly  overtaken  hy  evil,  v.  12. 
There  is  one  thing  more,  however,  to  which  some  ])re(jmincnce  must  be 
given,  viz.  wisdom,  v.  13.  This  sometimes  contrives  to  prevent  threatened 
€vil,  even  when  superior  force  is  employed  to  inflict  it,  vs.  14,  15.  Wisdom 
then  is  better  than  power,  aUhough  some  despise  it,  v.  16.  The  noiseless 
persuasion  of  wisdom  is  better  than  the  vociferous  boasting  of  fools,  v.  17. 
Wisdom  is  better  than  weapons  of  war,  and  one  unskilled  in  it  may  do  much 
mischief] 

(1)  For  all  this  have  I  considered,  and  searched  out  all  this;  that  the 
i-ighteous,  and  the  wise,  and  their  works,  are  in  the  hand  of  God ;  neither 
love  nor  hatred  doth  any  man  know;  all  is  before  them. 

The  'IS  here  Hitzig  renders  ja,  truly,  verily.  Of  course,  he 
disconnects  this  from  the  preceding  verse.  But  it  seems  to  me  a 
plain  case  of  a  causal  meaning.  In  8  :  17,  it  is  said,  that  no  man 
can  fathom  the  mystery  of  the  exchange  of  lots  by  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked.  The  grievous  part  is  assigned  to  the  righteous. 
Now,  he  gives  a  reason  why  this  cannot  be  investigated  by  men, 
viz.  that  all  is  at  the  divine  disposal,  which  has  so  ordered  matters, 
that  what  happens  is  not  an  index  of  approbation  or  disapproba- 
tion as  to  persons.  —  To  put  to  heart,  is  to  consider,  to  revolve  in 
one's  mind;  as  often  before.  —  ^^inb,  Inf.  const.,  but  filling  the 
place  of  an  Inf.  absolute,  which  sometimes  continues  a  discourse 
after  a  finite  verb,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  it  were  itself  finite. 
For  an  example  of  the  Inf.  abs.  so  employed,  see  Is.  42 :  24, 
coinp.  with  Ezek.  20  :  8.  For  the  like  of  the  Inf.  const.,  see  1 
Sam.  8:12,  three  Infinitives  with  1? .  In  Is.  44  :  14,  28.  38  :  20. 
10:  32.  Jer.  19:  12.  2  Chron.  7:  17,  we  find  the  Inf.  const, 
with  b ,  employed  as  a  definite  verb  in  discourse,  l^nb  is  em- 
ployed in  the  same  way  as  if  it  were  '^ri"i2 ,  i.  e.  /  sought  out  or 
explored,  root  ^^3 .  —  All  this,  in  the  second  clause,  is  a  repetition 
designed  to  specify  his  entire  investigation,  and  to  add  intensity 
to  the  affirmation.  It  refers  to  what  is  said  in  vs.  14 — 17  of 
Chap.  VIII.  —  The  righteous  and  the  wise  are  the  party  for  whom 
the  writer  is  most  deeply  concerned,  and  therefore  they  only  are 
mentioned  here.  —  In  the  hand  of  God,  i.  e.  they  and  all  their 
doings  are  in  his  power,  and  at  his  disposal.  —  Ncitlier  love  nor 


Chap.  IX.  2.  245 

hatred,  Knobel  takes  in  the  passive  sense,  i.  e.  neither  love  nor 
hatred  on  the  part  of  another  toward  the  rigliteous,  etc.,  not  that 
which  they  themselves  exercise.  Ilerzf.,  Iloiligst.,  and  Hitzig, 
however,  understand  the  latter ;  which  can  make  sense  only  by 
interpreting  it  as  meaning,  that  men  do  not  know  whether  they 
are  hereafter  to  love  or  to  hate,  since  God  directs  all.  This 
seems  to  me  tame  and  insipid.  The  writer  is  labouring  to  show, 
(at  least  the  objector  whom  he  here  personates  is  doing  so),  that 
as  all  is  in  the  hands  of  God,  who  deals  undistinguishingly  with 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked  (see  7  :  14),  so  no  man  can  tell 
whether  favour  or  disfavour  is  to  be  shown  him  in  future.  The 
next  verse  fully  confirms  this  view ;  for  he  goes  on  to  say,  that 
"  all  have  one  common  lot."  I  have  translated  by  neither  love 
nor  hatred  on  account  of  the  "pN  {not)  that  follows.  A  direct 
literal  translation  would  be :  both  love  as  well  as  hatred  no  man 
knoweth,  which  sounds  rather  awkwardly  in  our  idiom.  The  true 
sense  is  given  in  the  version.  —  IVie  whole  is  before  them,  Vsn ,  the 
whole  matter,  viz.  that  which  he  is  discussing,  or  rather  all  that 
pertains  to  their  future  lot  in  regard  to  favour  or  disfavour.  Be- 
fore them,  means  that  the  matter  in  question,  viz.  the  showing  of 
these,  is  yet  future,  or  that  the  exhibition  of  these  is  to  be  during 
the  i)eriod  that  is  before  them,  i.  e.  which  is  yet  to  come.  In 
other  words  :  No  man  can  tell  whether  good  or  ill  fortune  is  to 
betide  him,  because  he  cannot  know  the  future. 


(2)  AH  are  like  to  all;  there  is  one  destiny  to  the  righteous  and  to  the 
Avicked ;  to  the  good  and  pure  and  to  the  impure;  to  him  who  sacrificeth 
and  to  him  who  doth  not  sacrifice ;  as  is  the  good  so  is  the  sinner ;  he  that 
sweareth  is  like  to  him  that  f'carcth  an  oath. 

The  Vsri  in  this  verse  becomes  personal,  viz.  the  whole  or  every  ' 
man  is  like  to  every  man,  or  rather  (as  in  the  version)  :  all  are  like 
to  all.  Doubtless  it  is  a  kind  of  apothegm,  here  applied  to  the 
writer's  purpose.  Some  have  supposed  that  it  might  be  translated, 
everythirig  is  alike  to  every  person,  i.  e.  the  same  things  happen 
to  all,  as  the  context  goes  on  to  show.  But  the  article  prevents 
this  rendering  by  a  specific  individual  sense  ;  for  bsn ,  means  the 
totality,  like  to  tdv.  Each  one  must  be  bis .  lite  whole  are  the 
parties  mentioned  in  8:  14 — 17  ;  for  a  totality  of  things  cannot 
here  be  made  out.  The  first  version  is  more  conformable  to  the 
21* 


246  '  Chap.  IX.  3. 

original,  and  seems  more  easy  and  natural.  —  All  are  like  to  all, 
(Vsn  generic),  gives  us  the  sentiment,  that  every  one  is  like  to 
his  fellow,  in  regard  to  the  events  or  evils  of  life.  Like  most 
proverbial  sayings,  this  will  not  bear  minute  scanning.  We 
ask :  If  all  is  one  totality,  then  who  are  the  others  whom  the  first 
resembles  ?  "  Qui  haeret  in  litera,  haeret  in  cortice,"  a  maxim 
of  jurisprudence  says ;  and  it  applies  well  here.  The  simple 
meaning  is :  '  Every  one  is  like  to  all  the  rest.'  Lit.  the  phrase 
would  run  thus  :  The  whole  [is]  according  to  that  which  [is]  to 
the  whole ;  i.  e.  all  share  the  same  destiny,  each  one  is  subjected 
to  that  which  happens  to  all  others.  —  P'^'7^^ ,  with  the  article  ; 
and  so  of  all  the  names  of  whole  classes  that  follow.  —  ^izih , 
good  in  the  moral  sense  here,  although  it  seldom  has  such  a 
meaning  in  this  book.  —  j^'^i^Ms  opposed  both  to  good  and  pure, 
and  was  selected  as  being  the  opposite  of  the  immediate  antece- 
dent,'nilrj . —  In  rS'w^sn  the  construction  is  changed.  If  it  fol- 
lowed suit,  it  would  be  "3'J:3S3 .  The  change  of  construction  is 
doubtless  for  the  sake  of  variety.  —  ns'^nd  is  placed  before  the 
Part.  5<^">  which  governs  it,  in  order  to  give  it  emphasis.  The 
oath  in  question  may  be  a  civil  one,  (see  8:2);  or,  more  proba- 
bly, it  is  here  a  religious  one.  To  sioear  hy  Jehovah  is  to  a})peal 
to  him  as  the  Supreme  God,  and  is  an  express  acknowledgment 
that  he  is  such.  The  characteristics  of  the  classes  are  such  here 
in  general,  as  designate  moral  and  immoral,  religious  and  irreli- 
gious. The  next  verse  presents  to  us  fully  the  design  of  the 
writer,  in  bringing  these  discrepant  classes  together,  and  placing 
them  side  by  side. 

(3)  There  is  an  evil  in  everytliino-  wliicli  is  done  under  the  sun.  that  tliere 
'is  one  destiny  to  all;  and  moreover,  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  full  of 
evil,  and  madness  is  in  their  hearts  while  they  live,  and  after  that  —  to  the 
dead. 

s'"i  an  evil,  not  with  Rosenm.  the  most  grievous  evil.  The  evil 
in  question  is  described  in  the  next  clause.  —  "^S  that,  conj.  — 
fT^pis ,  occurrence,  lot,  luck,  destiny.  —  051  introduces  an  additional 
evil,  discrepant  from  that  just  described. — Full  of  evil  is,  in 
8:  11,  expressed  by  full  to  do  evil.  In  the  latter  passage,  this 
fulness  of  evil  is  consequent  on  tlie  delay  of  punishment;  but  in 
our  text,  it  seems  to  be  consequent  on  the  common  destiny  of  all, 


CuAP.  IX.  4.  247 

as  to  suffering  cand  sorrow.  —  Madness,  in  this  book,  sometimes 
denotes  unreasonable  and  obstinate  folly  in  refusing  to  obey  or 
submit  to  God.  —  While  they  live,  i.  e.  during  the  whole  of  their 
lifetime,  this  madness  continues.  And  then  what  ?  nirrn-?x , 
to  the  dead,  plainly  elliptical,  C^zVn  {they  will  go)  being  implied. 
The  brevity  adds  to  the  energy  of  the  representation,  ""nx , 
after  that,  viz.  after  suffering  and  doing  evil  all  his  days  ;  or  it 
may  be  simply  adverbial,  afterwards. 

(4)  Truly,  whoever  is  joined  to  all  the  living  —  there  is  hope  [for  him]; 
for  as  to  a  living  dog,  it  is  better  than  a  dead  lion. 

The  "IS  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  seems  to  be  cavsal.  But 
the  preceding  clause  —  they  go  to  the  dead  —  appears  hardly  to  be 
so  connected  with  this  verse,  as  to  call  for  or  admit  here  a  cause 
or  reason  of  going  thither.  The  critics  who  call  it  causal  (Kno- 
bel,  Hitzig),  do  not  show  how  or  why  it  is  so.  It  seems  prefer- 
able, therefore,  since  this  cannot  be  readily  shown,  to  take  ""S)  in 
its  occasional  affirmative  sense,  viz.  profecto,  (Germ,  ya  or  aher 
yd),  truly ;  Lex.  ^3,  No.  6.  c.  See  on  4:  16,  for  ^3.  Then  the 
connection  of  thought  would  stand  thus :  *  They  go  to  the  dead 
.  .  .  truly  a  great  evil,  since  there  is  hope  only  for  the  living,  etc/ 
—  "173,  although  generally  interrogative  and  meaning  whol  is  also 
at  times  used  indefinitely  to  designate  ivhoever,  or  he  ivho  ;  see 
Lex.  s.  V.  No.  2.  If  we  could  join  ^rs  with  it,  and  take  both  as 
meaning  whoever,  it  would  make  a  facile  sense.  But  I  know  of 
no  example  to  support  and  justify  this.  "VVe  seem  compelled, 
then,  to  regard  the  Ileb.  as  running  thus  :  whoever  [there  is], 
that  shall  he  joined,  etc.  If  ""O  be  made  an  interrogative  =  who  is 
there  that  is  joined  etc.  7  then  no  tolerable  sense  can  be  made  out 
of  the  passage.  —  "inn*^  has  vowels  that  belong  to  the  Qeri  ^sn^ . 
If  the  Kethibh  be  retained,  then  it  must  be  pointed  *inD7  •  ^^^ 
the  clause  :  who  shall  choose,  (for  this  is  the  meaning  of  ^ns^), 
will  make  no  sense  here.  We  feel  obliged,  therefore,  to  adopt  the 
Qeri ;  as  the  ancient  translators  and  most  of  the  modern  ones 
have  done.  A  further  reason  for  preferring  the  Qeri  is,  that 
*in2  does  not  take  bx  after  it,  as  here  ;  while  this  particle  appro- 
priately follows  ^sn^  .  The  latter  moans  :  joined  to  or  associated 
with.  — All  the  living,  designates  multitudinous  living  beings.  The 
whole  expression  wears  a  somewhat  singulai*  air — joined  to  the 


248  Chap.  IX.  5. 

mass  of  living  beings,  instead  of  sajing  simply  "sn  Trx .  The 
phrase  has,  I  believe,  no  parallel  in  the  Heb.  Scriptures.  —  77tcre 
is  hope,  i.  e.  amidst  the  vicissitudes  of  things,  the  bright  side  may 
sometimes  present  itself  as  well  as  the  dark  one.  There  is  hope, 
then,  of  some  enjoyment.  Such  a  living  man  is  much  better 
than  a  dead  man  ;  for  even  a  living  animal,  although  contempti- 
ble, is  better  than  the  king  of  beasts  when  dead.  The  "^3  here 
is  causal.  The  clause  that  follows  is,  no  doubt,  a  proverbial 
maxim.  Knobel  produces  one  from  the  Arabic,  (in  Golius's  Adag. 
Cent.),  of  just  the  same  tenor  as  our  text :  "  A  living  hound  is 
better  than  a  dead  lion."  In  the  East,  the  dog  is  accounted  as  a 
contemptible,  unclean,  detestable  animal.  The  opposite  to  the 
dog,  is  here  the  king  of  beasts.  The  antithesis  is  striking.  If 
what  the  proverb  says  of  the  dog  be  conceded,  then  how  much 
better  of  course  is  a  living  man  than  a  dead  one !  —  ^^^b ,  with  b 
prefix,  and  yet  it  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence.  Cases  of  b 
prefixed  to  the  Nom.  have  been  generally  recognized ;  e.  g.  such 
cases  as  in  Ps.  16  :  3.  Is.  31  :  1.  2  Chron.  7  :  21.  Without 
appealing,  however,  to  this  somewhat  doubtful  principle,  we  may 
solve  the  difficulty  in  another  way.  It  is  plain  that  h  not  unfre- 
quently  means  in  respect  to,  quod  attinet  ad;  see  Lex.  No.  5. 
We  may,  however,  translate  so  as  to  preserve  here  the  usual 
sense  of  b  when  standing  before  a  Dative  :  To  a  living  dog  there 
is  good,  compared  with  a  dead  lion.  Then  all  runs  smoothly,  and 
the  same  sense  comes  out  as  before.  In  rr^'ii* ,  the  n-  is  a  parag. 
formation,  the  simple  word  being  I'lX . 

(5)  For  the  living  know  that  they  must  die,  but  the  dead  know  not  any- 
thing, nor  is  there  any  more  a  reward  for  them,  for  their  memory  is  forgot- 
ten 

But  what  comfort  is  there  in  knowing  that  we  are  to  die? 
Specially,  where  there  is  no  definite  hope  of  future  happiness  ? 
If  death  is  so  fearful  as  the  writer  (personating  however  the 
objector)  has  just  told  us,  it  must  be  only  a  matter  that  harasses 
the  mind  and  causes  dejection  of  spirit,  whenever  it  is  thought 
of.  What,  then,  is  this  advantage  or  reward  of  the  living  ?  And 
has  not  the  writer  said  (7 :  1),  that  "  the  day  of  one's  death  is 
better  than  the  day  of  his  birth?"  Has  he  not  "praised  the 
dead,  which  are  already  dead,  more  than  the  living  which  are 


Chap.  IX.  5.  249 

yet  alive  ?"     Has  he  not  said,  that  "better  than  both  of  those  is 
he  that  hath  not  been  ?  "  4 :  2,  3.     Yes,  all  this  has  been  said  ; 
but  then  it  was  in  a  despairing  moment,  and  in  a  dejected  and 
gloomy  state  of  mind.     And  even  now,  the  speaker  claims  small 
meed  for  the  living  —  mei-ely  the  consciousness  that  they  must 
die.     Is  it  better,  then,  to  have  such  a  painful  consciousness  con- 
tinually, than,  like  the  dead,  to  have  none,  or,  as  he  says :  "  to 
know  not  anything  ?  "     I  cannot,  amid  such  embarrassments,  do 
otherwise  than  suppose  his  mind  to  be  intent  on  what  he  has 
said  in  7  :  2,  viz.  that  ''  the  living,  who  go  to  the  house  of  mourn- 
ing, will  lay  it  to  heart."     The  consciousness  that  they  must  die 
may  produce  two  important  effects  upon  them ;  the  one,  that  in 
prospect  of  death  they  will  soberly,  and  gravely,  and  equitably 
demean   themselves,  so  as  to  be  prepared  for  death  ;  the  other, 
that,  knowing  the  shortness  of  life,  they  will  make  the  best  of  it, 
in  a  sober  use  of  the  good  things  they  may  possess  or  acquire  ; 
see  vs.  7  seq.  below.     If  this,  or  something  like  it,  be  not  the 
design  of  the  writer,  I  know  not  what  it  is.     Hitzig  has  shunned 
the  difficulty  ;  and  Knobel  and  Herzfeld  have  merely  "  nibbled 
at  the  bait,"     One  must  at  least  have  a  very  gloomy  view  of 
death,  if  he  is  willing  to  deem  the  mere  consciousness  that  he 
must  die  an  impoutant  advantage  over  a  state  of  death.     Yet 
this  would  seem  to  be  the  literal  and  obvious  meaning  of  our 
text.     Then  again,  that  the  dead  kno\v  nothing,  and  will  not  have 
even  the  reward  of  being  remembered,  (one  of  the  least  of  all 
rewards,  because  they  cannot  participate  in  it),  is  spoken  of  as 
the  consummation  of  human  misery.     Must  not  language  like 
this  come  from  a  worldling,  who  indulges  gloomy  reveries,  and 
doubts  of  any  future  existence  ?     What  Christian  can  speak  so 
now  ?     I  must  believe,  then,  that  Coheleth  has  given  us  here 
some   of  the  most  violent  cases   of  doubt,  which  once   passed 
through  his  own  mind,  or  else  was  suggested  to  him  by  some 
objector.       Chap.  8 ;  12,  13,  discloses  definitely  his  own  views; 
and  they  shine  out  again  in  11:  0  and  12:  7,  13,  14,  and  at  least 
gleam  in  3 :  1  7.  5  :  8.     It  is  impossible  to  harmonize  both  classes 
of  texts,  except  by  filing  away  until   all  the  strength  and  sub- 
stance of  the  language  is  gone.     Why  may  we  not,  therefore, 
consent  that  the  objector  should  speak   his  full  mind  ;  as  Paul 
often  makes  hhn  to  do?     AVith  this  position  for  our  basis,  we 


250  Chap.  IX.  6,  7. 

need  be  under  no  serious  embarrassment  in  our  interpretation. 
Only  a  dissatisfied,  doubting,  gloomy  mind  engenders  and  broods 
over  such  conceptions  as  these.  —  ^n^;^d ,  "d  =  -irx ,  and  the  verb 
is  Imperf.  Kal,  3d  plur.  with  ^i  medial  omitted,  and  -  vicarious 
put  for  !|  i.  e.  in  the  room  of  it ;  §  8  III.  Class,  h. ;  the  root  is 
TA'Q  .  —  No  reivard,  i.  e.  no  means  of  after-enjoyment.  Even  the 
least  of  all  comforts,  that  of  being  remembered,  is  denied  to 
them. 

(6)  Moreover  their  love,  as  well  as  tlicir  hatred,  and  also  tlicir  jealousy 
has  already  perished ;  they  have  no  more  part  forever  in  all  that  is  done 
beneath  the  sun. 

The  deep  tone  of  gloomy  and  despairing  sensitiveness  here 
speaks  out,  in  respect  to  the  supposed  condition  after  death. 
Neither  love  of  friends,  or  hatred  of  enemies,  or  jealousy  of  the 
more  fortunate,  agitates  them  any  more.  No  more  can  they 
engage  in  any  worldly  pursuit.  This  probably  alludes  to  the 
common  popular  notions  about  the  shadowy  n'^xs^i  in  the  under 
world,  the  umhrae  of  departed  persons,  deprived  of  all  substantial 
life  and  enjoyment,  and  action.  Love  of  holiness,  hatred  of  sin, 
and  jealousy  (as  we  render  rrxip?)  for  the  honour  of  God,  do  all 
exist  in  a  future  state.  "  The  pleasures  forevermore,"  which 
David  anticipated,  (Ps.  16:  11)  ;  "  the  being  satisfied  with  awak- 
ing in  the  likeness  of  God,"  (Ps.  17:  15)  ;  "  the  awaking  from 
the  dust  to  everlasting  life,"  (Dan.  12:  2)  ;  must  surely  have  been 
out  of  the  mind  of  him  who  uttered  such  complaints  as  our  text 
and  context  exhibit,  at  least  for  the  time  being  ;  and,  like  holy 
(but  not  always  consistent  and  submissive)  Job,  he  was  doubtless 
ready  to  curse  the  day  of  his  birth.  Job  3:1.  It  seems  to  me 
impossible  to  give  any  other  account  of  this  matter,  if  the  lan- 
guage be  fully  and  fairly  investigated,  and  left  to  speak  for  itself. 

But  what  reply  does  Coheleth  make  to  all  this  ?  We  shall 
immediately  see  in  the  sequel. 

(7)  Go,  eat  with  gladness  thy  broad,  and  drink  with  a  joyful  heart  thy 
wine,  for  God  has  long  since  favourably  regarded  tliy  woi  k. 

Once  more  then,  in  this  extremity,  when  it  is  urged  that  virtue 
and  vice  both  meet  with  the  same  reward,  and  that  all  have  one 
and  the  same  inevitable  doom,  Coheleth  betakes  himself  to  the 


Chap.  IX.  8,  9.  251 


advice  so  often  before  repeated,  (2:  24.  3:  12,  22.  5:  18),  viz. 
that  one  should  enjoy  the  fruit  of  his  labour,  and  accept  what  he 
can  enjoy  with  gladness  of  heart.  But  in  the  present  case,  he 
goes  more  fully  into  this  subject,  and  brings  more  particulars  of 
enjoyment  to  view ;  as  the  following  verses  will  show.  —  r^b 
Imper.  of  ^h"^ .  — ?]^nb ,  sufF.  form  of  nnb  (reg.)  with  T]-  in 
pause.  —  ni:: ,  glad,  rather  than  merry.  The  latter,  as  Coheleth 
thinks,  belongs  only  to  fools.  —  '^"''y'?'.^ ,  prob.  sing,  here,  although 
it  has  the  form  of  the  plural ;  see  §  91.  9,  where  it  is  shown  that 
the  suffix  state  of  nouns,  from  roots  fib ,  is  often  the  same  in  both 
the  sing,  and  plural.  —  T/ii/  ivork  or  thy  doing  is  the  thing  done, 
or  to  be  done,  in  obeying  the  command  as  given  above.  God  has 
permitted  and  given  his  approbation  to  such  doing,  is  what  the 
writer  means  to  say. 

(S)  At  all  times  let  thy  garments  be  white,  and  let  not  oil  upon  thy  head 
be  lacking. 

The  Hebrews  often  employ  r^'J  (sing,  number)  in  the  same 
way  as  we  do  the  plural.  I  have  translated  in  accordance  with 
our  usual  idiom. —  Garments  he  white,  because  such  were  the 
garments  worn  by  those  who  were  rejoicing,  while  sackcloth  was 
the  usual  costume  of  mourners,  and  of  such  as  fasted.  See  2 
Sam.  12  :  20.  19  :  24,  and  the  opposite  of  these  in  Ps.  35  :  14. 
Mai.  3  :  14.  2  Sam.  14:  2.  The  anointing  of  the  head  with  oil, 
was  another  custom  observed  by  those  who  were  rejoicing ; 
comp.  Matt.  6  :  17.  Ruth  3 :  3.  Dan.  10  :  3. 

(9)  Enjoy  life  with  the  wife  whom  thou  lovest.  all  the  days  of  thy  vain 
life,  which  he  hath  given  to  tlice  under  the  sun,  all  the  days  of  thy  vanity; 
for  this  is  thy  portion  in  life,  and  in  the  toil  which  thou  hast  performed  under 
tlie  sun. 

nxn ,  see  in  2  :  1 ,  enjoy.  —  "^"^^'ba ,  Ace.  of  time.  —  ina  he  hath 
given ;  who  ?  God  of  course  is  implied,  as  it  has  often  been 
already  expressed  ;  see  5  :  17.  —  x^n ,  masc,  but  here  used  for 
the  neuter,  it  is  or  this  is,  viz.  that  which  had  been  before  en- 
joyed. Ewald  says,  "  that  this  is  a  '  schlechtes  Kethibh  '  (a  sorry 
orthography)  of  the  Babylonian  Jews ! "  But  see  the  same  in 
3:  22.  5 :  17.  It  is  hardly  correct  to  say,  that  only  the  fem.  i<"<ln 
is  employed  elsewhere  as  the  neuter,  although  this  is  the  most 
frequent  usage.     In  the  Pent,  both  are  usually  written  tfrt ,  but, 


252  Chap.  IX.  10. 

when  fern.,  pointed  t^in ,  in  reference  to  a  supplied  Qeri  in  the 
margin,  5<'^n  .  And  besides  this,  i<!in  is  fem.,  or  used  as  fern.,  in 
1  K.  17:  15.  Job  31:  11.  Is.  30:33,  see  Lex.  Tiie  position 
of  Hitzig,  then,  does  not  seem  to  be  quite  firm. 

In  all  this  there  is  nothing  Epicurean.  It  is  plainly  the  sober 
enjoyment  of  life  which  he  commends,  and  nothing  is  mentioned 
which  is  unlawful  or  forbidden.  Such  is  the  course  to  which 
Coheleth  advises,  rather  than  to  indulge  in  the  gloomy  views 
and  feelings  that  had  just  been  expressed.  Here  again,  we, 
under  the  meridian  sun  of  the  gospel,  are  at  a  loss  to  see,  why 
he  did  not  point  the  disconsolate  complainer  to  a  brighter  and 
better  world.  It  would  be  spontaneous  in  us  to  do  so.  —  But 
this  subject  has  already  been  discussed  above,  and  the  discussion 
need  not  be  repeated  here.  Beyond  a  doubt,  the  course  advised 
is  better  than  gloom  and  murmuring  ;  and  so  far  as  this  world 
merely  is  concerned,  to  pursue  this  course  would  make  us  more 
contented  and  happy  than  to  turn  from  it  or  forsake  it. 

(10)  All  which  thy  hand  findeth  to  do  with  thy  niiyht,  do  [it] ;  for  there  is 
no  work,  nor  planning,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom,  in  the  world  beneath 
whither  thou  art  going. 

Tiry  hand  findeth^  i.  e.  whatever  thou  canst  grasp,  or  whatever 
is  at  thy  disposal;  comp.  Lev.  12:  8.  25:  28.  —  ^inba,^^  thy 
power ^  i.  e.  with  thy  might  or  ability.  —  nb? ,  do  [it],  the  pro- 
noun being  implied  after  the  verb.  Do  it  forthwith  and  energet- 
ically. Why  ?  Because  there  is  no  work,  etc.  —  The  i  prefix  I 
have  rendered  iior,  because  of  the  "px  at  the  head  of  the  clause. 
The  advice  here  given  is  adapted  to  increase  the  enjoyment  of  a 
rational  man,  one  of  whose  instincts  iS,  to  be  active  and  engaged 
in  something.  To  be  and  to  do  this,  renders  him  more  con- 
tented and  happy.  —  There  is  no  luork,  nor  planning,  etc.,  comp. 
V.  5  above,  where  is  the  same  sentiment.  Does  Colieleth  say 
this  for  himself?  Or  docs  he  merely  recapitulate  what  the 
objector  had  said  ?  I  prefer  the  latter  view.  Then  the  matter 
would  stand  thus :  '  Enjoy  thyself  all  that  thou  canst ;  be  ever 
busy  and  engaged  with  something ;  for  this  will  help  thee  to  for- 
get thy  gloomy  forebodings.  And  this  is  sound  advice,  pro- 
vided that  all  you  say  is  true,  viz.,  that  there  is  no  zvork,  etc. 
All  this  need  not  hinder  the  enjoyment  that  you  may  reasonably 


Chap.  IX.  11.  253 

have.'  —  b-^'xpa ,  in  Sheol,  i.  e.  the  under-world,  the  world  of  the 
dead.  The  connection  in  which  v.  10  stands,  does  not  well  admit 
of  the  language  being  ascribed  directly  to  the  objector.  But  his 
objection  seems  to  be  indirectly  introduced  ;  for,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  settled  opinion  of  Coheleth  himself  (8  :  12,  13)  was  somethino- 
quite  different  from  this.  It  would  be  difficult  to  make  out  con- 
sistency on  any  other  ground  than  that  here  taken.  Neoloo-ical 
commentary  points  to  this  chapter  with  special  confidence,  as 
showing  that  Coheleth  neither  knew  nor  believed  anything  of  a 
future  state.  But  what  if  it  mistakes  an  objector's  words,  and 
ascribes  tliem  to  Colieleth  himself?  The  positive  passages 
which  show  his  views  of  a  judgment  and  of  retribution,  are  too 
strong  to  justify  us  in  yielding  to  suggestions  of  this  nature, 
prompted  and  quickened  by  a  spirit  of  skepticism. 


§  14.  Wisdom  profits  sometimes,  and  at  other  times  not :   Folly  wiU 
be  sure  to  meet  with  due  reward. 

Chaps.  IX.  11  — X.  20. 

[Vs.  11,  12,  bring  before  us  again,  on  the  part  of  the  objector,  the  subject 
of  an  overruling  destiny,  against  which  Avisdom  is  of  no  avail.  Men  are 
caught  as  in  a  net,  in  spite  of  wi.sdom,  when  evil  suddenly  befalls  them. — 
To  this  Coheleth  replies,  that  he  has  known  some  signal  cases  where  wisdom 
protected  from  danger;  these  he  pioduces  in  vs.  13 — 15.  He  therefore  eulo- 
gizes wisdom  more  than  strength,  v.  16.  The  quiet  words  of  the  wise  have 
much  more  that  commands  attention  in  them,  than  the  outcry  of  fools;  wis- 
dom is  better  than  warlike  instruments,  and  the  want  of  it  may  do  great  mis- 
chief, vs.  17, 18.  Chap.  x.  Folly  spoils  everything,  v.  1.  A  fool  will  disclose 
his  folly  in  all  his  actions,  vs.  2,3.  Wisdom  directs  to  act  prudently  and  not 
foolishly,  when  rulers  are  angry,  v. 4.  Fools,  when  promoted  to  honor,  show 
their  folly,  vs.  5 — 7.  There  arc  various  ways  in  Avhich  folly  and  imprudence 
may  be  develojicd,  vs.  8 — 15.  Woe  to  the  land  that  has  foolish  rulers,  v.s.l6, 
17.  Gluttonous  and  slothful  rulers  occr.sion  many  evils,  vs.  18,19.  Take 
good  care  how  you  utter  anything  ngain.-^t  rulers,  for  they  will  be  sure  to  find 
it  out,  v.  20.] 

(II)  I  turned  and  saw  under  the  sun,  that  the  race  is  not  to  tlie  swift,  nor 
the  battle  to  the  strong;  and  moreover,  tl.at  bread  is  not  to  the  wise,  and  also 
that  riches  arc  not  to  the  discerning,  and  likewise  that  favour  is  not  to  the 
knowing,  but  time  and  chance  happen  to  all  of  them. 

n>in  ,  Inf  abs.  as  a  definite  verb  ;  see  cases  under  ^n^irib  in  v.  1. 
22 


254  Chap.  IX.  12. 

—  Si^n^'3 ,  victorious  contest  here.  —  dii  stands  before  three  par- 
ticulars in  succession.  They  are  coordinate  in  Heb.  ;  but  it  is 
difficult,  with  a  negative,  as  here,  to  render  them  into  English  so 
as  to  give  the  exact  shape  of  the  Hebrew,  cr^  denotes  accession^ 
and  is  in  its  own  nature  climactic.  But  here,  as  all  the  particu- 
lars are  coordinate,  we  can  hardly  make  out  any  climactic  shape 
or  design  of  the  clauses.  There  is  no  gradation  in  the  importance 
of  them.  —  0^51'-? ,  Niph.  Part.  adj.  sing,  "jiss ,  from  "j-^a .  —  "jn , 
favour.  —  rs^ ,  time,  viz.  seasons  when  this  or  that  will  occur.  — 
3>55 ,  chance,  i.  e.  whatever  happens  to  or  befalls  one.  —  n-iir"; ,  oc- 
cur, meet,  come  upon.  In  other  words  :  All  are  subject  to  the  sports 
of  fortune,  and  neither  strength,  nor  wisdom,  nor  intelligence  can 
prevent  it.  This  is  the  old  complaint  against  wisdom,  viz.  that  it 
is  of  no  avail.  An  irresistible  power  orders  all  these  things  as  it 
pleases.  All  this  is  aggravated  by  the  fact,  that  men  can  have  no 
previous  knowledge  of  disasters,  so  as  to  shun  them.  So  the 
next  verse :  — 

(12)  Eor  no  man  knoweth  his  time ;  like  fishes  that  are  caught  in  a  de- 
structive net,  or  like  sparrows  which  are  caught  in  a  snare,  so  they,  the  sons 
of  men,  arc  ensnared  in  an  evil  time,  when  it  comes  suddenly  upon  them. 

ns)  Hitzig  explains  by  time  of  death.  But  the  last  part  of  the 
verse  shows  that  it  is  the  time  of  misfortune.  The  '^3  at  the  be- 
ginning is  causal.  The  preceding  verse  declares  that  time  and 
chance  come  upon  all.  One  reason  here  given  for  this  is,  that  no 
man  can  do  anything  to  escape  the  evils  of  life,  because  he  knows 
not  when  they  are  coming,  and  therefore  cannot  do  anything 
effectual  to  prevent  them.  They  come  upon  men  as  unexpectedly 
as  upon  the  fishes  and  the  birds,  who  cannot  anticipate  them.  — 
D'lNln  *i:s  is  added  to  explain  cn  ,  and  is  put  in  apposition  with  it. 

—  Qiu;;?^'! ,  Part.  Pual  of  ^';^;^ ,  dropping  its  ^  preformative  ;  see 
§  51.  2.  n.  4  and  5.  The  Dagh.  forte  which  would  regularly  be 
in  pis  dropped,  because  of  the  preceding  long  vowel  >.  —  "  solvitur 
ob  vocalem  longam."  — ^iQlnc3  =  bisn  and  ^irtts  when.  The 
verb  is  fern.  Imperf  of  bE3 ,  and  agrees  with  TS  which  is  fem. 

—  Such  is  the  unhappy  lot  of  man,  in  the  view  of  the  objector. 
Let  us  hear  the  reply,  which  shows  that  wisdom  ought  not  to  be 
so  underrated. 


Chap.  IX.  13—15.  255 

(13)  I  too  have  seen  this,  [namely]  wi^^dom  under  the  sun.  and  it  was 
great  to  m  •. 

The  MT  is  fern,  and  refers  to  the  subsequent  fi^sn .  The  He- 
brew construction  is  involved.  We  should  naturally  expect 
n)  n^Dn  .  On  this  account,  Ilitzig  writes  it  nt ,  and  translates  : 
That  hare  I  seen  :  Wisdom,  etc.  This  seems  too  hard.  I  should 
prefer  to  repeat  the  verb  Ti-'X'n  mentally,  and  place  it  before  Jr^^n  . 

I  take  riT  as  anticipative,  and  have  so  translated 5<'^n ,  was  it.  — 

^^x ,  to  me,  i.  e.  in  my  view,  or  to  ray  mind  or  apprehension ; 
comp.  Jon.  3  :  3.  What  the  wisdom  in  question  is,  he  is  going  to 
explain  by  example. 

(14)  There  was  a  little  city,  and  the  men  in  it  were  few  ;  and  there  came 
unto  it  a  great  king,  and  he  surrounded  it,  and  built  over  against  it  large 
towers. 

There  ivas  is  the  necessary  implication  of  the  text,  but  is  not 
written. —  ^y^p,  fem.  of  'ii:;^  a  Pilel  form  with  Dagh.  implied 
in  the  final  "i ,  which  makes  its  apj^earance  in  the  fem. ;  see  §  91.8. 

—  'JV'O ,  in  pause,  lit.  fewness.  —  A  great  king,  here  so  called 
probably  from  his  leading  on  many  troops.  —  n*^^:^  against  it, 
but  this  preposition  involves  something  more,  viz.  over  against, 
which  means  that  the  towers  corresponded  to  the  walls,  and  proba- 
bly (of  course)  overtopped  or  overlooked  them.  Such  towers  were 
movable,  and  could  be  advanced  to  the  walls,  or  drawn  back  from 
them,  and  so  gave  much  advantage  to  besiegers.  — c^bn^ ,  both  ca- 
pacious and  lofty. 

(15)  And  there  was  found  in  it  a  wise  poor  man,  and  he  rescued  the  city 
by  his  wisdom;  and  yet  no  one  remembered  that  poor  man. 

The  verb  X'l^  is  without  any  Nom.  expressed  ;  and  of  course 
we  may  translate  thus  :  One  found,  etc.,  or  in  the  Pass,  as  above. 

—  The  two  adjectives,  Gsn  ',2p^ ,  are  coordinate,  and  both  belong 
to  'i'^x  .  The  omission  of  the  conjunctive  "^^  denotes  a  close  union, 
like  poor-wise,  almost  a  kind  of  compound  word.  —  ^t'n  is  em- 
phatic, and  therefore  expressed.  —  Wisdom  here  means  sagacity, 
i.  e.  ir  employing  the  means  of  defence  or  aggression.  —  x^nn, 
that  same,  an  intensive  here. 

Ilitzig  refers  this  to  matter  of  liistorical  fact  in  tlie  writer's  own 
day  ;  and  that  fact  he  finds  in  the  besieging  of  the  little  town  of 
Dora,  on  the  sea-shore,  by  Antiochus  the  Great  of  Syria,  about 


256  Chap.  IX.  16,  17. 

218  B.  c.  He  could  not  take  it,  with  all  his  troops.  So  he  repre- 
sents the  time  of  writing  the  book,  to  be  that  during  the  period  of 
Ptolemy  Euergetes's  reign.  But  in  the  first  place,  cases  of  this 
kind  are  so  frequent,  that  there  is  no  necessity  of  supposing,  in 
the  present  one,  that  this  or  that  individual  fact  is  before  the 
writer's  eyes,  but  only  a  vivid  recollection  of  instances  of  the  like 
kind.  Secondly,  it  will  by  no  means  follow,  that  we  must  come 
so  low  down,  and  insist  on  finding  an  appropriate  example  that  is 
actually  on  record.  Were  there  not  many  such  cases,  at  an  earlier 
period,  of  which  we  have  no  existing  record,  although  they  may 
have  once  been  chronicled  ?  Enough  that  the  example  adduced 
would  be  readily  admitted  as  a  fact,  i.  e.  acknowledged  to  be  true 
and  in  point. 

(16)  Then  I  said:  Wisdom  is  better  than  force;  3'et  the  wisdom  of  tlie 
poor  man  is  despised,  and  his  words  are  not  listened  to. 

The  meaning  is  not,  that  he  then  said  so  and  so,  but  now  says 
differently,  but  that  he  then  said  and  still  says.  —  mi^  fem.  Part, 
p  ass.,  masc.  '^^t2,  from  hts  .  —  And  his  words  etc.,  Heb.  lit.  and 
as  to  his  words  (Nom.  abs.)  they  are  not,  etc.  But  how,  then,  was 
the  city  saved,  if  his  wisdom  was  despised,  and  his  counsel  not 
li  stened  to  ?  The  answer  is,  that  the  writer  is  here  characterizing 
the  man  in  a  general  way ;  he  is  stating  what  usually  happens, 
and  thus  describing  the  neglect  which  such  men  usually  have  to 
suffer  ;  and  not  telling  us  merely  what  happened  in  relation  to 
him,  on  the  particular  occasion  now  brought  before  us.  He  wishes 
to  show,  that  a  poor  and  wise  man,  who  commonly  is  looked 
down  upon,  and  to  whom  no  one  is  disposed  to  listen,  because  he 
occupies  a  low  place,  may  still  accomplish  important  objects,  be- 
yond the  reach  of  mere  force. 

(17)  The  words  of  the  wise,  in  a  quiet  w:iy,  are  hoard  raih.er  than  the 
shouting  of  a  leader  among  fools. 

The  meaning  clearly  is,  that  the  words  of  the  wise  are  calmly 
and  modestly  uttered,  instead  of  their  making  a  bluster  and  outcry ; 
for  this  word,  nn3^,  is  opposed  to  the  hoisierousness  (ri?"])  of 
fools.  Even  a  ^'iJi'S,  a  leader,  prince,  among  fools,  has  less  chance 
of  producing  any  effect  by  his  vociferous  addresses,  than  the  wise 
man  quietly  giving  counsel.     This  prince,  by  the  way,  is  himself 


Chaps.  IX.  18— X.  1.  257 

supposed  to  be  ojie  of  ike  fools  ;  for  otherwise  the  point  of  the 
discourse  would  vanish.  A  wise  man  might  reign  over  fools, 
and  still  act  wisely.  But  the  outcrt/  which  this  bdiTS  makes, 
shows  that  he  belongs  to  the  fools. 

(18)  Better  is  wisdom  than  instruments  of  war;  and  one  sinner  dcstroyeth 
much  good. 

The  meaning  of  the  first  clause  is  evident,  from  vs.  14, 15  above. 
—  i<'jirt ,  has  final  Seghol  instead  of  Tseri,  for  which  see  §  74. 
VI.  n.  21.  The  word  here  evidently  points  to  an  offender  against 
wisdom,  i.  e.  a  fool.  He  wiio  neglects  the  precepts  and  guidance 
of  wisdom,  can  do  nothing  but  harm  by  his  mismanagement ;  yea, 
in  case  he  is  a  b^^in,  he  will  do  much  harm,  i.  e.  destroy 
much  good. 

Chap.  X. 

(1)  Dead  flics  make  the  ointment  of  the  apothecary  to  stink —  to  ferment ; 
more  weighty  than  wisdom,  and  also  than  what  is  costly,  is  a  little  folly. 

It  is  difficult,  in  the  first  clause,  to  account  for  the  sinff.  number 
of  the  two  verbs.  There  is  a  small  class  of  cases  where  the  verb 
agrees,  in  case  of  a  composite  subject,  with  the  noun  that  follows 
the  const,  state,  rather  than  with  the  const,  noun  itself,  which  is 
the  usual  and  natural  Nom.  or  subject,  §  145. 1.  But  most  of  these 
cases  are  such,  as  that  a  kind  of  compound  noun  may  be  made  of 
the  two  nouns ;  or,  they  are  cases  in  which  the  const,  noun,  i.  e. 
that  which  comes  first,  is  virtually  an  adjective,  §  104.  1.  n.  1. 
Here  neither  of  these  principles  will  readily  apply.  We  must 
then  either  suppose  this  is  an  unusual  extension  of  the  principle 
above  noticed  ;  or  that  the  "i  in  "l^i^iT  is  merely  euphonic,  as  e.  g. 
p'niJ— sb^  ,  and  the  like.  But  these  last  forms  are  mostly  com- 
pound proper  names  only.  To  render  'insist  by  the  singular,  i.  e.^y, 
(which  Ewald  has  done,  and  Hitzig  seems  to  approve),  is  cutting 
the  knot,  not  untying  it.  Besides,  to  talk  o?  one  fly,  as  corrupting 
a  parcel  of  unguent,  seems  to  us  very  odd,  to  say  the  least.  It 
must  be  a  very  small  parcel  of  ointment,  at  any  rate,  and  a  very 
large  fly.  On  the  whole,  I  see  no  solution  so  promising  as  that 
dead  flies  are  considered  en  masse  here,  i.  e.  as  a  totality,  and  so  the 
apparently  plural  subject  may  take  a  verb  singular.  The  principle 
of  severalty,  or  individuality,  in  the  continuance  of  the  sentence 

22* 


258  Chap.  X.  1. 

after  a  plur.  subject,  cannot  in  this  case  be  well  admitted,  for  that 
again  would  bring  us  virtually  to  the  incredible  assertion,  that 
each  fly  produces  the  effects  that  are  described.  On  the  whole, 
hoAvever,  Hitzig  thinks  it  most  feasible  to  adopt  this  solution,  and 
refers  us  for  like  examples  to  v.  15  below  and  to  Hos.  4  :  8.  But 
both  of  these  cases  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  what  is  asserted  of 
the  many,  is  specially  and  plainly  true  of  each  individual.  But 
this  cannot  be  said  here ;  for  it  is  only  the  many  which  can  pro- 
duce the  effect  asserted.  On  the  contrary,  he  notes  a  case  of  the 
opposite  nature,  where  the  writer  goes  from  the  singular  over  to 
the  plural  (Zech.  14 :  12),  th^sa  . .  .  iDii:^ .  But  here  again  the 
1  is  a  pronoun  of  multitude.  If  the  grammar  is  not  in  his  favour, 
(and  this  seems  to  be  the  case),  the  sense  thus  made  is  still  more 
against  him,  because  an  individual  fly  could  not  produce  the 
effects  in  question. —  As  to  the  rendering :  jomso?zo?/5  ov  deadly 
flies^  the  words  might  mean  this  of  themselves,  but  they  cannot 
do  so  here.  It  makes  nothing  to  the  writer's  purpose  to  call 
them  deadly,  for  such  would  corrupt  the  mass  no  more  than 
others.  Moreover,  there  would  then  be  an  imjDlication,  that 
other  flies  would  not  corrupt  it,  which  is  not  true.  —  Hirn,  of  the 
unguentarius,  i.  e.  of  the  person  who  compounds  the  ointment  for 
sale.  Of  course,  it  was  a  composition  which  required  skill  in 
order  to  make  it  saleable.  Both  words,  T\pi'^  )^^:2_ ,  indicate  pre- 
cious ointment,  viz.  such  as  was  compounded  with  skill  and  care. 
■np"^  has  here  its  original  sense,  viz.  weighty,  heavy.  The  im- 
agery is  drawn  from  scales,  in  which  the  greater  weight  prepon- 
derates. Both  clauses  here  illustrate  the  latter  clause  of  the 
preceding  verse,  viz.  one  sinner  destroyeth  much  good.  The  flies, 
although  small  and  contemptible  animals,  may  do  much  mischief 
to  valuable  substance.  i:J"^n^  (liiph.),  makes,  or  causes,  an  ill 
savour  ;  r^s;;  (Hiph.  of  >?2),  makes  to  bubble  up,  i.  e.  ferments. 
The  two  verbs  are  asyndic,  i.  e.  joined  without  any  1  between 
them,  but  we  are  unable  to  render  either  of  them  adverbially 
here,  or  (as  usual)  to  make  one  qualify  the  other  (§  139.  3.  b) 
as  a  kind  of  helping  verb.  But  still,  there  is  an  intimate  connec- 
tion between  them  ;  for  a  rendering  fetid  is  accomplished  by 
causing  fermentation.  The  effect  is  first  named  in  our  text,  and 
then  the  cause  of  it  is  described.  This  energic  mode  of  expres- 
sion is  not  unfrequent  in  Heb.,  but  we  can  rarely  imitate  it  in 


Chap.  X.  2,  3.  259 

English  with  much  success,  because  the  structure  of  the  idioms 
is  so  diverse.  —  In  the  latter  clause,  the  preponderance  which 
only  a  little  of  folly  has  over  wisdom  and  over  whatever  is  pre- 
cious, shows  "  how  great  a  matter  a  little  fire  kindleth,"  or  that 
"one  sinner  may  destroy  much  good."  Such  is  the  debasing 
and  corrupting  influence  of  folly,  that  only  a  little  of  it  will  spoil 
the  most  valuable  and  precious  qualities  or  virtues.  The  object 
of  the  verse  before  us,  (to  confirm  what  precedes),  and  the  man- 
ner of  accomplishing  this  object,  seem  then  to  be  quite  plain  ;  so 
plain,  that  the  separation  of  chapters  here  is  incongruous  and 
almost  preposterous.  It  is  not  improbable,  that  both  parts  of  v. 
1  are  apothegms,  applied  here  to  the  writer's  special  purpose.  He 
might  indeed  have  expressed  his  present  views  in  plain  and  direct 
words  ;  but  he  has  chosen  a  method  of  doing  it,  which  gives  more 
life  and  vivacity  to  the  discourse.  An  ordinary  reader  mistakes 
such  passages  for  mere  unconnected  apothegms.  But  we  have 
seen  how  little  ground  there  is  for  this. 

(2)  The  heart  of  a  wise  man  is  on  his  right,  but  the  heart  of  a  fool  on  his 
left. 

The />%szraZ  place  of  the  literal  heart  is  out  of  the  question  here, 
for  that  would  reverse  the  statement,  the  beating  heart  being  on 
the  left  side  of  the  breast.  Right  and  left  are  used  metaphorical- 
ly, for  dextrous  and  ungained  or  unskilful.  The  right  hand  is 
the  usual  one  for  action  ;  the  left  is  more  rarely  and  awkwardly 
employed.  Right  and  left,  in  the  Heb.  do  not  mean  merely  right 
hand  and  left  hand,  but  the  words  are  more  generic,  i.  e.  right 
side  or  quarter,  etc.  —  b  often  marks  the  place  where,  as  nnsb ,  at 
the  door,  etc.  —  ^^  ?  as  often  elsewhere,  means  understanding,  be- 
cause the  heart  was  regarded  as  the  seat  of  it ;  not  the  hrain,  as 
with  us.  Sentiment :  '  A  wise  man  will  use  his  understanding: 
dexterously,  so  as  often  to  profit  himself;  a  fool  employs  his  to 
no  purpose,  or  to  a  bad  one.'  Evidently,  the  same  subject  as 
before  is  in  the  writer's  mind.  The  superiority  of  wisdom  to 
folly  is  rendered  more  conspicuous  still  by  what  follows. 

(3)  And  even  when  a  fool  walkcth  by  the  way,  his  understanding  is  lack- 
ing; and  he  saith  of  every  one  :   He  is  a  fool. 

Further  exhibitions  of  folly.     There  is  an  unusual  inversion 


260  Chap.  X.  4. 

of  order  here,  in  the  Heb.  The  sense  demands  an  order  in  Eng., 
such  as  the  version  above  presents ;  but  the  Heb.  runs  thus : 
Even  on  the  way,  when  the  fool  is  walking,  etc.  The  meaning  is 
the  same  as  that  above  given.  —  T)'!^!!? ,  with  the  article,  because 
it  is  in  such  a  case  equivalent  to  the  suff.  pronoun  i  —  his,  i.  e.  it 
is  definite.  —  Inbs&nrs,  the  vowels  are  adapted  to  the  Qeri, 
which  omits  the  t\  (article).  But  there  is  no  need  of  this.  IssO 
is  the  same  fool  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  therefore, 
as  a  renewed  mention,  may  claim  the  article.  —  )r3  =  "ytyc^ ,  as 
before.  —  Walks  hy  the  way,  the  meaning  is  not  while  he  is  on  a 
journey,  but  while  going  about  in  the  way  of  intercourse  with 
men  is  meant.  In  such  a  case,  he  leaves  his  heart  (imdersiand- 
ing)  behind,  (lOn)-  —  '^^J?  j  says,  but  here  says  internally  =  thinks 
or  supposes.  —  bsb ,  with  the  article,  means  each  specific  indivi- 
dual in  this  case.  When  generic  or  signifying  totality,  it  also 
takes  the  article  ;  just  as  o  ««rog  means  a  particular  eagle  in  dis- 
tinction from  other  eagles,  and  also  the  genus  eagle  in  distinction 
from  other  genera  of  birds  —  &^in  ^SD  are  the  words  which  he 
speaks,  or  rather,  what  he  thinks,  respecting  every  one  that  he 
meets.  It  is  a  conspicuous  proof  of  his  folly,  that  he  deems  him- 
self to  be  wise,  and  every  one  else  to  be  a  fool.  This  is  another 
dash  of  colouring,  which  makes  the  picture  more  glowing. 

(4)  If  the  spirit  of  a  ruler  risetli  up  against  thee,  forsake  not  thy  standing, 
for  gentleness  appeaseth  great  offences. 

n^'n  here  means  spirit,  in  the  like  sense  that  we  give  to  the 
word  when  Ave  say :  '  He  replied  with  much  spirit.'  An  excited 
or  indignant  state  of  the  mind  is  really  meant.  —  But  the  ruler 
—  who  is  he  ?  The  answer  seems  to  be  :  The  same  ruler  as  the 
ts'ib^pss  ^'tyd  above,  in  9  :  17.  Meaning:  If  then  a  foolish  ruler 
gets  angry  with  thee,  do  not  forsake  thy  steadfastness.  —  Forsake 
not  thy  standing,  ^^^ip'? ,  lit.  station,  place  on  ivhich  one  stands. 
Here  figuratively,  i.  e.  it  designates  stability,  sober  consideration, 
self-possession.  —  i<Q"i^ ,  means  what  is  soothing,  i.  e.  getitleness  of 
demeanor,  in  the  present  case,  exhibiting  no  signs  of  anger  or 
excitement.  —  n'^S^ ,  Hiph.  of  T\^^ ;  see  Lex.  to  quiet,  tranquillize, 
or  appease.  —  Great  offences,  i.  e.  such  as  the  angry  ruler  deems 
great.  Even  he,  although  foolish,  may  usually  be  appeased  by 
firmness  and  gentleness. 


Chap.  X.  5—7.  261 

(5)  There  is  an  evil  I  have  seen  under  the  sun.  as  an  error  -svliich  proceeds 
from  a  prince. 

Furtlier  confirmation  as  to  what  a  foolish  ruler  may  do,  and 
often  does.  Coheleth  calls  it  an  evil;  and  with  good  reason.  To 
designate  his  special  meaning,  he  goes  on  to  show  from  what 
quarter  the  evil  comes.  It  is  such  an  error  as  can  proceed  only 
from  a  ruler.  After  evil,  the  Heb.  omits  ^'rx  as  being  of  course 
implied ;  I  have  done  the  same  in  the  version.  —  As  the  error, 
the  3 ,  says  Hitzig,  is  Kaph  veritatis,  and  if  so,  we  may  render 
thus :  verily  an  error,  etc.  But  I  apprehend  that  this  does  not 
give  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  The  writer  means  to 
say,  that  the  evil  in  question  is  such  an  error  as  rulers  only  can 
commit.  —  N'^^r ,  contracted  from  the  fem.  Part.  nx:i^ ,  and  so 
agreeing  with  the  fem.  nriy::  —  ^22^^,  lit.  from  the  face  of  from 
the  presence  of  But  this  word  is  often  used  in  the  same  way,  at 
least  with  the  same  meaning,  as  the  simple  "{c ,  which  designates 
the  cause  or  source  whence  this  or  that  springs ;  see  Lex.  E.  F. 
2.     We  shall  soon  see  what  the  error  in  question  is. 

(6)  Folly  is  placed  in  many  high  stations,  and  the  rich  sit  in  degradation. 

Folly  is  placed,  the  abstract  for  concrete,  folly  for  fools.  That 
the  plural  is  meant,  is  shown  by  the  plur. :  antithesis,  f'n^^rS' . 
By  this  last  word  is  meant,  not  so  much  the  wealthy  merely,  as 
those  in  a  flourishing  and  elevated  condition.  Comp.  1  Sam. 
2  :  7,  8.  —  ^£1^3 ,  in  a  low  place,  in  a  state  of  degradation.  The 
sudden  elevation  of  persons  in  a  low  condition  to  office,  under  an 
eastern  despot,  is  a  transaction  that  occurs  almost  every  day ; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  the  degradation  of  those  in  office,  for  the 
sake  of  confiscating  their  property,  is  equally  frequent,  in  the 
eastern  world.  This  oppression  and  avarice  and  selfishness  Co- 
heleth deems  to  be  a  grave  error,  and  the  whole  affords  additional 
evidence,  that  "  one  sinner  can  destroy  much  good." 

(7)  I  have  seen  servants  upon  horses,  and  j)rinces  walking  as  servants  on 
the  ground. 

This  is  only  another  method  of  illustrating  what  he  had  just 
said.  Servants  are  promoted  to  office,  and  ride  forth  in  state ; 
for  horses  are  used,  in  the  East,  principally  by  the  rich  and 
nobles.    On  the  other  hand  ;  they  who  once  were  princes,  are 


362  Chap.  X.  8,  9. 

now  cast  down,  and  obliged  to  take  the  place  and  attitude  of 
servants,  who  walk  on  the  ground,  and  hold  the  bridle  of  him 
who  rides.     Everything  is  vgteqov  tiqoteqov. 

(8)  He  who  diggcth  a  ditcli  may  fall  into  it^  he  who  breaketh  down  a 
wall,  a  serpent  may  bite  him. 

This  looks  simply  like  something  merely  apothegmatic ;  and 
in  fact  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  discover  its  connection  with  the 
context  Merely  to  designate  the  ordinary  business  of  digging  a 
ditch  or  pulling  down  a  wall,  we  can  hardly  suppose  this  to  be 
intended.  The  meaning  is,  that  when  one  digs  a  ditch  or  pit- 
fall, for  the  annoyance  or  destruction  of  others,  he  may  chance  to 
share  himself  in  their  intended  fate ;  not  that  he  certainly  will 
fall  into  it,  for  this  cannot  be  true  in  such  a  universal  sense. 
Accordingly  I  have  translated  by  may  fall  —  may  bite,  etc.  So 
the  pulling  down  a  wall,  implies  some  unlawful  destruction  of  the 
hedge  or  fence.  In  doing  this,  the  serpents  which  lodge  in  the 
chinks  of  the  wall  may  bite  him.  —  y'B^^, ,  properly  a  participial 
noun  of  Pual,  so  that  the  doubling  of  the  middle  radical  (^)  here 
is  normal.  The  ^  is  merely  orthographic,  being  short  here  by 
reason  of  the  Daghesh,  and  not  a  proper  Shurey.  —  *i2r:^"!'  ?  ^^- 
perf.  Kal  of  '^•iJs ,  with  suff.  ^l-.  ■ 

(9)  He  who  pluckcth  up  stones  shall  be  annoyed  by  them,  he  who  cleaveth 
wood  shall  be  endangered  thereby. 

I  do  not  find  any  authority  for  Gesenius's  excidit  lapides,  as 
the  meaning  of  tD^?nj<  r'^S^ .  The  verb  r&2  means  to  pluck  up^ 
e.  g.  trees,  vines,  tents,  etc.,  and  in  connection  with  the  last 
meaning,  to  move  from,  an  encampment,  etc.  The  action  here 
which  annoys,  seems  to  be  the  pidling  out  of  stones  from  their 
beds  in  the  earth,  which  often,  being  rough,  and  being  laid  hold 
of  incautiously  in  order  to  pull  them  out,  annoy  the  persons  con- 
cerned in  the  labour.  So  the  splitting  of  wood  (ni:^:; ,  plur.  in 
Heb.)  brings  one  into  danger,  who  does  not  manage  with  skill.  — 
"ll^s^  is  a  doubtful  word.  Its  meaning  in  Kal  is  to  dwell  with. 
It  is  found  in  Niplial  only  in  the  case  before  us.  It  seems  best 
explained  by  the  Chaldee  "JSG ,  to  expose  to  danger,  nsSD ,  danger. 
Hitzig  and  Ges.  derive  it  from  '■psb ,  coulter,  and  so  they  con- 
eider  it  as  a  denominative  verb,  meaning  to  cut.     Possible ;  but 


Chap.  X.  10.  263 

hardly  probable.     The  other  method  is  more  obvious  and  satis- 
factory. 

And  now  —  to  what  purpose  are  the  last  two  verses  ?  To  me 
they  seem  designed  to  show  how  numerous  the  dangers  and 
exposures  to  harm  are,  even  in  the  common  occupations  of 
life,  and  how  important,  therefore,  that  wisdom  should  be  pres- 
ent as  a  guide,  in  all  of  them.  The  cases  here  stated,  are  not 
designed  to  be  statements  of  things  that  uniformly  and  of  neces- 
sity occur,  but  such  as  need  wisdom  or  dexterity  to  avoid  all  evil 
consequences  that  might  easily  ensue.  If  so,  they  help  to  ele- 
vate wisdom  at  the  expense  of  folly ;  and  this  stands  in  accord- 
ance with  the  writer's  aim. 

(10)  If  one  has  dulled  the  iron,  and  there  is  no  edge;  he  swings  [it]  that 
he  may  increase  the  force;  an  advantage  is  the  dexterous  use  of  wisdom. 

Here  the  object  of  the  writer  comes  out  fully,  i.  e.  to  show  the 
advantage  of  making  a  dexterous  use  of  wisdom.  The  dexterity 
here,  in  case  of  a  tool  that  is  dulled,  consists  in  so  swinging  it 
and  increasing  its  force,  as  still  to  make  it  cut.  —  l-ifni^  is  to  he 
dull ;  nn^ ,  Piel,  is  to  make  didl  or  (as  we  say)  to  dull.  The  Nom. 
then  is  the  indef  one,  and  ^psrn  is  in  the  Ace.  —  d'^SS-^b ,  no 
faces,  i.  e.  no  edges,  or  without  edge  (see  Lex.  No.  4)  ;  like  D'^S^'Jjib , 
childless,  1  Chron.  2  :  30,  32.  fiSS  means  the  front  part  of  any- 
thing, which,  in  a  cutting  instrument,  is  the  edge.  —  bj^bp ,  Pilpel 
of  bb;^,  to  move  hither  and  thither ;  see  Ezek.  21  :  26,  where  this 
is  plain.  The  notion  of  polishing  or  sharpening  has  no  etymolo- 
gical ground  of  support.  The  other  meaning  is  supported  by 
the  Arabic  and  Aethiopic.  If  this  be  admitted,  the  pause-accent 
should  be  placed  on  c:"^:5 ,  and  not  on  bj^bp .  This  last  is  in  the 
Perf.,  which  may  be  rendered  as  Pres.  (§  124.  3),  he  swings  [it~\, 
that  he  may  increase  the  force  or  power.  When  the  Ace.  is  placed 
before  the  verb  (as  t:ib;^n]  is  here),  then  the  1,  which  belongs  to 
the  verb  and  affects  the  sense  of  it,  still  has  the  same  power  that 
it  would  have  if  the  verb  immediately  followed  it.  So  here : 
that  he  nwy  increase  etc.,  5  that,  §  152.  B.  e.  —  ^'I'riri,  Inf.  abs. 
nominascens,  but  retaining  its  power  of  governing  the  Ace. 
n^:n .  —  By  this  last  clause,  we  have  the  key  put  into  our 
hands,  which  will  unlock  vs.  8 — 10.  In  all  cases  of  difficulty, 
embarrassment,  or  danger,  in  the  common  business  of  life,  a  dex- 


264  Chap.  X.l  1,12.   " 

terous  use  of  wisdom  is  indispensable  to  safety  and  success.  —  To 
the  same  purpose  Hitzig  explains  our  text,  and,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  with  satisfactory  reasons.  Whoever  is  curious  to  see  the 
variety  of  opinions  that  have^been  given,  may  consult  Knobel  in  loc. 

(11)  If  tlie  serpent  bite  without  enchantment,  then  is  there  no  advantage 
to  him  who  hath  a  tongue. 

UJnsri ,  with  the  article,  because  it  refers  to  the  serpent  men- 
tioned in  V.  8.  The  idea  conveyed  by  the  verse,  is  built  on  the 
universal  belief  of  the  East,  (partly  founded  on  fact),  that  ser- 
pents can  be  charmed  so  as  to  render  them  harmless.  It  is  done 
every  day  at  Cairo,  and  has  been  witnessed  by  Mr.  Lane,  a 
most  intelligent  and  recent  English  traveller.  —  T|^7,  Imperf. 
Kal.  from  'r^rs .  —  Without  enchantment,  i.  e.  if  a  serpent  bite 
because  he  is  not  enchanted,  (for  if  he  were  enchanted  he  would 
not  bite),  then  there  is  lack  of  wisdom,  which  might  have  pre- 
vented the  bite.  The  writer  has  also  conveyed  this  last  senti- 
ment in  another  way  :  Then  is  there  no  advantage  to  him  who  hath 
a  tongue.  That  is,  he  who  has  a  tongue,  but  not  knowledge  or 
skill  to  use  it  on  such  an  occasion,  reaps  no  advantage  from 
having  it.  Wisdom  is  wanting  to  guide  its  action,  where  he 
remains  silent  at  such  a  crisis.  It  was  only  the  ivisc,  it  would 
seem,  wlio  were  able  to  enchant ;  comp.  Ps.  58 :  6.  Is.  3  :  3. 
When  a  man  had  not  wisdom  to  use  his  tongue  so  as  to  render 
harmless  the  serpent,  then  no  advantage  accrued  to  him  from 
being  "liiii^n  b>'3 ,  the  possessor  of  a  tongue ;  like  r]D3  bra ,  Prov. 
1  :  \7,  possessor  of  a  wing  =  winged.  In  other  words,  even  the 
most  distinguished  members  of  the  body  are  comparatively  use- 
less, without  wisdom  to  direct  their  use.  —  This  verse,  therefore, 
is  of  the  same  tenor  as  the  preceding  verses.  That  the  tongue 
was  specially  employed  in  enchantment,  is  evident  from  the  fact, 
that  this  mostly  consists  of  cantillating  certain  forms  of  exorcism. 
The  Greeks  called  a  man  who  performed  this  work,  inaotdog, 
cantillator.  Although  the  serpent  cannot  understand  the  exor- 
cism, he  is,  as  experience  shows,  operated  on  by  the  power  of  the 
music,  for  he  will  leave  his  lurking-place  to  come  out  and  hear  it. 

(12)  The  words  of  the  wise  man's  mouth  are  favour;  but  the  lips  of  the 
fool  destroy  him. 

—  Favour,  in ,  i.  e.  are  such  as  procure  favour ;  they  are  goodly 


Chap.  X.  13—15.  2Go 

words,  such  as  conciliate favou)\  —  T/te  lips  of  a  fool,  not  his  literal 
lips,  but  what  they  utter,  i.  e.  the  ivords.  —  ninsb ,  the  reg.  plur. 
in  const,  state,  instead  of  the  dual  "^rsb ;  Ps.  45  :  3,  for  a  like  usage. 

—  Destroy  him,  need  not  be  taken  hi  its  full  and  literal  sense,  but 
in  that  of  doing  much  injury. 

(13)  The  bco-inning  of  the  words  of  liis  moutli  is  folly,  and  the  ending  of 
liis  mouth  is  grievous  madness. 

This  gives  a  reason  for  what  was  affirmed  in  the  preceding 
verse.  From  beginning  to  end,  he  plays  the  fool  in  all  that  he 
says.  What  he  utters  is  folly,  and  oftentimes  even  a  madness 
which  is  mischievous  {^'{^)  to  himself  Not  until  this  mischief 
overtakes  him  will  he  cease  prating ;  it  will  be  well  if  he  does  then. 

—  IVie  ending  of  his  mouth,  is  an  abridged  form  for  the  ivords  of 
his  mouth,  as  in  the  preceding  clause,  which  is  in  part  omitted  in 
order  to  avoid  repetition. 

(14)  The  fool  multiplies  words,  when  no  man  can  know  what  shall  be; 
for  v.-hat  shall  be  after  him,  who  can  tell  1 

Although  much  speaking  leads  to  the  utterance  of  many  foolish 
things  (5  :  2,  6),  yet  the  fool  indulges  in  it ;  and  this,  even  when 
neither  he  nor  any  one  else  can  tell  what  mischievous  conse- 
quences will  follow.  —  For  ivhen,  there  is  no  special  word  in  the 
original ;  but  the  connection  of  3-"n;^"5<b  shows,  that  such  a  mean- 
ing is  implied. —  ^rxi , /or  whcd,  §  152.  B.  c.  —  After  him,  or 
after  it,  viz.  the  utterance  of  many  words.  There  is  no  important 
difference  between  the  two.  The  first  is  the  most  simple  and 
obvious.  The  reasoning  stands  thus :  He  must  be  a  fool,  who 
utters  things  that  may  have  mischievous  consequences  which 
none  can  foretell. 

(15)  The  toil  of  fools  wearies  them,  because  they  know  not  how  to  go  to 
the  city. 

But  may  not  toil  weary  others,  who  do  know  how  to  go  thither? 
Assurci'ly  it  may,  if  there  be  much  of  it ;  but  here  the  case  is  sup- 
posed of  a  man,  who  toils  much  in  order  to  get  to  the  city,  and 
does  this  because  he  is  so  foolish  as  not  to  know  how  to  get  there 
in  a  direct  way.  —  ^2:^!v!l^)  "^  Piel,  hut  fern.,  whilst  h'z's,  the  sub- 
ject, is  generally  masc.     Perhaps  n  here  assumes  the  place  of  ■< 

23 


266  Chap.  X.  16. 

prefix  formative,  which  would  regularly  be  ^s:r!?01  (see  §  69.  2). 
for  the  sake  of  a  more  euphonic  pronunciation.  So  Hitzig.  The 
true  solution  doubtless  is,  that  a  large  number  of  nouns  in  Heb., 
with  the  masc.  form,  have  a  fem.  gender ;  and  quite  a  consider- 
able number  are  both  masc.  and  fem.,  ad  libitum  scriptoris,  as  it 
would  seem.  Ewald  (Gramm.)  has  collected  a  great  mass  of  both 
these,  in  §  174.  Cases  of /em.,  like  h^'i ,  are  nd ,  trn ,  j^a^ ,  cans , 
etc.  Of  course  all  difficulty  vanishes  by  the  aid  of  this  considera- 
tion, and  ^Si^liOf^.  is  reg.  Piel  Imperf.  fem.  —  The  siyig.  suff.  here, 
5)2-  is  either  generic,  and  so  can  accord,  ad  sensum,  with  C'^b'^bS , 
or  else  it  individualizes,  and  signifies  that  each  and  every  fool  is 
wearied  in  the  manner  described.  —  The  same  in  respect  to  r"]^ , 
which  is  sing.  i.  e.  no  fool  knows,  etc.  —  Knows  not  how  to  go  into 
the  city,  is  doubtless  a  proverbial  saying,  descriptive  of  fools.  So 
we  may  say  of  a  man  :  '  He  has  not  wit  enough  to  travel  on  a 
broad,  open  highway  ;'  (for  such  are  the  ways  leading  to  a  city). 
This  is  only  a  satirical  but  covert  description  of  a  fool.  The 
labour  of  a  man,  who  has  not  wit  or  knowledge  enough  to  keep 
the  broad  thoroughfare  to  a  city,  may  well  be  supposed  to  weary 
him.  Literally,  the  thing  is  not  intended  to  be  taken.  What  is  meant 
is,  that  when  a  man  is  a  fool,  he  does  a  great  many  things  that 
weary  him  and  worry  him,  in  consequence  of  his  being  so.  A 
little  sound  wisdom  would  save  such  an  one  much  trouble.  Here, 
again,  the  preference  of  wisdom  oyer  folly  comes  into  view. 

(16)  Woe  to  thee,  0  land,  for  tliy  king-  is  a  youtli,  and  tliy  princes  feast  in 
the  morning. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  'n^s  is  not  limited  by  a  particular  year. 
Any  one  short  of  some  twenty-five  to  thirty  years  of  age  may  be 
so  named.  However,  in  the  present  case  the  probability  is,  that 
one  who  is  yet  a  child,  a  lad  (as  we  say),  is  meant ;  at  any  rate, 
one  who,  through  inexperience  and  a  bad  education,  is  inclined  to 
sensual  indulgences.  For  tliy,  in  both  cases,  may  be  substituted 
whose.  This  would  make  the  meaning  less  specific ;  whereas  I 
apprehend,  from  the  tenor  of  the  book,  and  the  frequent  and  loud 
complaints  against  oppressive  rulers,  that  the  author's  design  is  spe- 
cific. This  is  bold,  then  ;  but  not  bolder  than  the  Heb.  j^rophets  in 
general  are.  —  Princes  feast  in  the  morning,  therefore  at  a  very  un- 


Chap.  X.  17,  18.  267 

timely  and  improper  season  ;  see  Is.  5  :  11,  and  comp.  Acts  2: 15. 
This  shows  what  devotees  to  sensuality  the  shameless  rulers  were. 

(17)  All  liail !  to  tliee,  0  land,  when  thy  king  is  the  son  of  nobles,  and  thy 
princes  feast  in  proper  season,  for  streni^tli  and  not  for  banqueting. 

As  to  Tp';;)'^'5< ,  since  the  pronoun  is  fern.,  the  normal  form  would 
be  Tj';''!!  r  ^  ;  ^ut  t^iG  first  form  is  a  mere  contraction  of  the  second  ; 
which  is  admissible  in  a  case  where  the  gender  of  the  pronoun 
cannot  be  doubtful,  and  no  obscurity  can  arise  from  the  contrac- 
tion. However,  if  la7id  be  taken  for  people  (which  in  fact  it  really 
means  here),  we  might  take  T\  as  masc. ;  in  which  case,  however, 
we  must  point  it  tj'^-  .  All  hail/  gives  well  the  sense  of  the  word. 
Hitz. :  Heil  dir  /  —  G''"]"in,  nobles,  from  'I'^H,  liber,  ingenuus  fuit. 
So  in  the  Arabic  and  Syriac.  A  king  of  high  descent,  the  writer 
seems  to  suj^pose,  will  act  on  a  generous  and  noble  scale,  and  will 
not  feel  such  temptations  to  extortion  as  a  poor  man  does.  — 
nra  ,  plainly  means  :  at  a  proper  time  or  season.  This  shows  that 
they  are  not  such  debased  gluttons  or  drunkards,  as  to  carouse  at 
improper  seasons.  The  feasting  (lit.  eating)  is  temperate ;  for, 
first,  it  is  in  proper  season  ;  and  secondly,  it  goes  not  beyond  the 
measure  of  obtaining  nutriment  so  as  to  acquire  strength.  — 
ir'iJa ,  lit.  for  drinking,  compotation.  The  banquet-drinhing,  of 
course,  is  meant  here  ;  and  so  I  have  translated  it :  for  banqueting. 
That  2 ,  in  the  later  Hebrew,  is  sometimes  used  in  the  same  sense 
as  b  ,  has  before  been  noted ;  it  occurs  twice  here.  See  on  2  :  24, 
for  the  use  of  2  .  In  reality,  the  2  stands  before  the  thing  obtained 
by  commutation  with  some  other  things  ;  see  2  :  24.  The/ooc?  is 
exchanged  to  acquire,  or  is  the  price  of,  the  strength .  — '^r"i"2  with 
the  article,  because  it  refers  to  what  was  included  in  the  ^P^Jt"^, 
which  designates  both  eating  and  drinking,  i.  e.  feasting.  The 
innumerable  evils  inflicted  on  a  land  by  gluttonous  and  drunken 
rulers,  are  too  obvious  to  need  specification. 

(18)  TIn-ougli  idleness  the  timber  decaycth,  and  ihrongh  slackness  of  hands 
the  hou^c  drizzleth. 

l-i^lr^sn ,  lit.  beam,  but  generic  here,  and  so  it  means  timber.  — 
tr^'rh^'l ,  lit.  by  two  idle  [hands]  .  —  Ty^'^. ,  Imperf.  Niph.  of  T|2^ ,  to 
dissolve,  pine  away,  decay.  —  Tj^n'^,  drizzles,  i.  e.  lets  through  the 
rain,  because  it  is  not  repaired.    Ilitz, :  it,  rains  into  the  house. 


268  Chap.  X.  19,  20. 

I  take  the  house  as  the  Nom.  in  this  case,  which  makes  a  sense 
nearer  to  the  meaning  of  the  Heb.  verb,  which  is  used  in  speak- 
ing of  the  eye  when  distilling  tears.  So  the  house  distils  rain  on 
those  within  it,  i.  e.  drizzles. 

(19)  Foi'  merriment  they  celebrate  the  feast,  and  wine  makes  life  joyfuh 
and  money  procures  everything. 

pinbb ,  lit. /or  laughter,  i.  e.  boisterous  merriment ;  the  b  being 
in  the  place  of  3  ,  as,  vice  versa,  Si  is  in  the  place  of  b  ;  see  2  Chron. 
20  :  21.  1  Chron.  4  :  22.  Ps.  102  :  6.  Hos.  12  :  9,  etc.  — D^br,  Part, 
used  as  a  verb,  does  not  mean  to  make,  i.  e.  to  manufacture  bread, 
but  to  keep  or  celebrate  a  feast  (6:12.  3:12),  of  which  cnb ,  the 
leading  element  (bread)  is  taken  as  a  representative.  —  Life  joyful, 
viz.  their  life,  i.  e.  that  of  the  carousing  rulers.  —  Money  procures 
everything,  lit.  silver  makes  everything  respond.  The  usual  coin  was 
silver.  As  to  n;s^^ ,  it  is  in  Hiphil  Imperf.,  and  so  must  be  ren- 
dered :  makes  everything  respond,  viz.  respond  to  their  wishes. 
Money,  of  which  the  rulers  had  plenty,  will  procure  everything 
they  wish.  In  other  words  :  Nothing  will  be  denied  to  their  request, 
but  all  will  respond  as  they  wish.  Their  golden  key  will  open  all 
storehouses,  and  furnish  them  with  the  choicest  means  of  revelling. 
See  on  5 :  19,  where  this  word  (tii?^)  is  particularly  explained. 

(20)  Moreover,  in  thy  thoughts  curse  not  the  king,  even  in  thy  bedcham- 
ber  curse  not  the  rich,  for  the  birds  of  the  air  will  convey  the  report,  and  the 
winged  tribe  will  publish  the  matter. 

That  is,  (after  all  that  has  been  said  in  the  way  of  exposing  the 
debauchery  and  folly  of  rulers  and  rich  men),  guard  well  against 
indulging  bitter  feelings  of  indignation  and  vengeance  toward 
them.  It  is  dangerous  to  do  so.  In  some  unforeseen  way,  what 
is  done  in  secret  will  be  brought  before  them  ;  as  if  the  birds  of 
the  air  could  listen  and  make  report.  —  The  luinged  tribe,  lit.  the 
possessor  of  ivings.  Both  v]is^  and  h^JJi  are  generic,  and  so  they 
have  the  article,  M^hich  of  course  must  be  placed  on  the  following 
words  in  the  Gen.  after  a  const,  state,  §  109.  1.  —  Here  again 
ivisdom  or  discretion  is  needed  in  order  to  restrain  a  just  indigna- 
tion, where  the  indulgence  of  it  can  do  no  good,  and  will  almost 
with  certainty  occasion  harm. 

It  is  evident  that  the  rulers  of  Coheleth's  time  were  very  sen- 


Chap.  XL  1.  269 

sual,  oppressive,  and  avaricious  men,  who  made  the  land  to  groan 
under  their  yoke.  But  whether  they  wavo,  foreigners  ov  Hebrews, 
nothing  in  the  text  indicates  with  entire  certainty.  Nothing  is 
said,  or  even  hinted,  respecting  idolatry  in  the  whole  book.  Is 
not  this  an  indication,  that  the  book  was  written  after  the  exile  ? 
All  the  bad  kings,  before  the  captivity,  were  idolaters ;  but  here 
there  is  no  reference  to  this  subject,  nor  any  complaint  founded 
upon  it.  It  would  seem  that  the  rulers  in  question  were  not  idol- 
aters. 

§  15.    Counsel  in  regard  to  many  inevitable  evils  of  life;  specially 
in  regard  to  old  age  and  death. 

Chap.  XI.  1— XII.  8. 

[Many  trials  and  evils  must  come,  and  divine  Providence  has  made  them 
inevitable.  One  should  be  prepared  for  them,  as  well  as  lies  within  his  power, 
vs.  1 — 5.  One  should  be  busily  engaged  in  what  is  useful;  and  while  he  is 
permitted  to  be  joyful,  he  should  never  forget  that  the  days  of  sorrow  will 
come,  vs.  6 — 8.  The  season  of  youth  is  specially  titted  for  enjoyment  • 
which,  however,  passes  speedily  away,  and  while  it  lasts,  should  be  indulged 
with  reference  to  a  future  retribution,  vs.  9,  10.  The  Creator  should  be  re- 
membered in  yovtlifnl  days;  so  tliat  Avhen  the  infirmities  and  sorrows  of  old 
age  come,  they  may  be  borne  with  fortitude  and  cheerfulness,  ch.  xii.  1 — 8.] 

(1)  Cast  thy  bread  upon  the  face  of  the  waters;  for  after  many  days  thou 
shalt  find  it. 

Not  in  the  literal  sense  can  this  be  taken  ;  for  literal  bread  cast 
upon  the  waters,  soon  disappears,  being  disintegrated.  The 
meaning  seems  to  be :  Give  up  the  cherishing  of  definite  and  spe- 
cific expectations  of  ample  support,  (^^n^  ?  here,  the  image  or 
symbol  of  all  needed  good)  ;  leave  the  future  to  care  for  itself, 
but  still  with  a  hope  that  in  due  time,  although  this  time 
may  be  protracted,  you  will  experience  what  you  reasonably  de- 
sire. He  does  not  encourage  those  whom  he  is  admonishing,  to 
hope  always  for  immediate  success  or  relief ;  but  only  that  after 
many  days,  or  (lit.)  ivithin  much  of  time,  the  expectants  may  come 
to  have  iheir  wishes  satisfied.  The  amount  of  all  seems  to  be 
this  :  '  It  is  better  to  forbear  the  forming  and  cherishing  of  defi- 
nite and  confident  hopes,  since  this  will  save  us  from  harassing 
disappointments.  Leave  all  to  Providence.  In  due  time,  what  we 
hope  for  may  come  to  pass.' 

23* 


270  Chap.  XI.  2,  3. 

(2)  Make  a  portion  into  seven,  and  even  into  eiglit,  for  thou  knowest  not 
the  evil  which  shall  be  on  earth. 

h:^':;t^'i?  p\'n~)'n  means  7?ialce  or  constitute  a  -portion  into  seven 
[portions].  See  Gen.  32  :  8,  9.  p'bn  is  not  a  part  of  a  whole, 
but  a  portio7i  or  appropriation  more  or  less.  Here  the  meaning 
is,  divide  what  you  obtain  or  possess  in  such  a  way,  as  not  to  risk 
all  in  one  adventure  ;  or,  as  a  seaman  would  say :  *  Risk  not  all 
your  goods  in  one  ship.'  —  Into  seven  —  seven  what  ?  If  men  or 
persons  were  meant,  we  should  expect  them  to  be  named.  As 
the  text  now  is,  we  must  find  a  noun  to  agree  with  the  adj. 
number  seven ;  and  what  other  does  the  text  afford,  except  D'^pbri  ? 
Therefore  "jin  cannot  here  mean  give,  i.  e.  to  another,  but  put, place, 
constitute,  etc.  —  Thou  hnowest  not  the  evil,  etc.  The  Heb.,  as  it 
stands,  seems  to  read  thus :  '  Thou  knowest  not  what  shall  be, 
[viz.]  the  evil  on  earth.'  In  this  way,  thou  hnowest  not  must  be 
mentally  supplied  before  n:^"n .  Sentiment :  '  I  have  advised  against 
definite  and  confident  hopes ;  I  also  advise,  that  you  embark  not 
too  much  on  any  one  pursuit ;  for  if  this  fails,  then  all  is  lost.'  — 
The  addition  of  one  to  the  seven,  i.  e.  the  mention  of  eigJd,  is  a 
customary  mode  of  speech  among  the  Hebrews.  This  idiom  is 
peculiarly  and  forcibly  exhibited  in  Amos  1 :  3  seq. 

(3)  When  the  clouds  are  filled  with  rain,  they  empty  [it]  on  the  earth  ; 
and  when  a  tree  falleth  toward  the  south  or  toward  the  north,  in  the  ])lace 
where  the  tree  falleth,  there  it  will  be. 

That  is,  the  great  operations  and  events  of  nature  are  control- 
led by  a  Power  above,  and  cannot  be  hindered  or  changed  by 
the  eiforts  of  man.  It  is  useless  to  strive  against  them.  Both 
parts  of  the  verse  wear  the  air  of  proverbial  sayings,  which  are 
here  applied  by  the  writer  to  his  particular  purpose.  —  Clouds 
are  Jilled,  etc.  In  Job  38  :  37,  it  is  asked :  "  Who  can  stay  the 
bottles  of  heaven?"  This  gives  the  popular  idea  of  the  forma- 
tion, or  rather  the  collection,  of  rain-showers  ;  and  on  this  view  is 
founded  the  expression  before  us  of  being  jilled.  —  ^^i^^^' ,  Imperf. 
Niph.,  rather  than  Praeter,  because  what  is  habitually  done  is 
here  designated.  —  tra  Ace.  after  the  verb  of  filling,  §  135.  3.  h. 
—  Jipi'n;^ ,  Iliph.  Imperf.  of  p^^  .  The  pronoun  it,  corresponding 
to  rain,  is  of  course  implied  here.  —  ^isst'  ts< ,  lohen,  etc.,  see  Lex. 
3.  V.  No.  4.  —  dn'ns ,  lit.  in  the  south,  i.  e.  in  a  southern  direction. 


Chap.  XI.  4— G.  271 

We  say  toivard,  in  such  a  case.  —  dip^  Ace.  of  place,  and  in  reg. 
before  d=^^^i<,  §  114.  2.  —  ndx,  where,  Lex.  s.  v.  No.  6.— 
5<^!-i^ ,  apoc.  Imperf.  of  i^^tn  =  n^n .  The  x  is  otiant  and  merely 
orthographical,     itr;'  corresponds  to  "■T}'^  apoc. 

(4)  He  who  watchcth  tlic  wind,  will  not  sow;  and  lie  who  observcth  the 
clouds  will  not  reap. 

That  is,  -what  God  has  arranged,  we  cannot  alter,  nor  can  we 
foretell  what  he  will  do.  The  husbandman,  if  he  wait  for  the 
wind  to  come  into  what  he  deems  a  favorable  quarter  before  he 
ventures  to  sow,  may  not  sow  in  good  time.  If  he  depends  on 
the  appearance  of  the  clouds,  and  regards  them  as  ominous  of 
evil,  i.  e.  of  bad  weather,  then,  by  delaying  to  sow  in  due  time, 
he  will  not  reap  a  harvest.  One  must  go  straight  forward  in  his 
duty,  and  not  make  this  dependent  on  slight  circumstances  and 
uncertain  omens.  —  nn,  wind;  we  should  expect  the  article,  but 
the  word  is  here  used  in  a  kind  of  generic  way,  which  would  be 
shown  by  striking  out  the  in  the  version,  but  which  corresponds 
not  with  our  mode  of  expression.  In  this  case  the  Hebrew  has 
the  advantage,  rvn  ==  any  wind.  —  C'inrs ,  with  the  article,  being 
the  name  of  a  class  of  specific  objects  in  nature. 

(5)  As  thou  knowest  not  what  is  the  way  of  the  wind,  or  tlie  bones  in 
the  womb  of  her  who  is  with  child,  so  thou  knowest  not  the  work  of  God, 
who  doeth  all  things. 

As  thou  knowest  not  what  is  the  way  of  the  wind,  thou  canst 
gain  nothing  by  watching  it.  The  next  clause  is  elliptical,  thou 
knowest  not  being  implied  and  mentally  carried  forward  from  the 
preceding  clause,  and  inserted  after  3 .  —  The  hones  in  the  womh, 
etc.,  i.  e.  the  bones  oi^  ihe  foetus,  which  are  in  a  state  of  formation 
in  the  womb.  —  l^!;<^5?n  ,  tlie  pregnant,  like  the  Latin  gravida  -plena, 
and  the  Greek  TiXtjQovv  yvvalyia.  —  n:3 ,  even  so,  so  so,  intensive. 
Sentiment :  '  As  thou  art  confessedly  ignorant  of  such  matters  as 
these,  so  thou  art  in  reality  ignorant  of  what  God  does,  who  does 
everytiiing.' 

(6)  In  the  morning  sow  thy  seed,  and  at  evening  withhold  not  thine  hand, 
for  thou  knowest  not  which  shall  prosper,  whether  this  or  tliat,  or  whether 
they  both  shall  be  alike  good. 

That  is,  since  these  things  are  so,  go  on  "in  the  regular  way  of 


272  Chap.  XL  7,  8. 

duty  and  activity,  and  leave  the  rest  with  God.  Morning  and 
evening  are  mentioned  as  the  times  of  sowing,  i.  e.  the  former 
and  hitter  j^art  of  the  day,  because  these  are  the  labouring  hours 
in  Palestine,  inasmuch  as  the  heat  of  the  sun  obliges  labourers  to 
retreat,  during  four  or  five  hours  of  the  middle  of  the  day.  —  nsn , 
Hiph.  of  n^3 ,  see  Lex.  —  nt  "^x ,  strengthened  sign  of  an  interrog- 
ative position  of  the  pronoun,  "^iii  is  const,  of  ^i<  before  t\\ ,  and 
both  of  them  merely  make  out  a  pronoun  equivalent  in  this  place 
to  which.  —  iTrn  is  nr  with  the  interrogative  ri  before  it,  ivhether 
this,  viz.  shall  prosper ;  and  so  as  to  the  other  Sit ,  although  the 
interrogative  sign  is  omitted  before  it,  as  being  unnecessary.  — 
irixs ,  as  one,  i.  e.  alike,  equally,  (so  to  speak)  onely.  —  dx^  ,  in  a 
second  disjunctive  member  of  successive  interrogative  clauses,  is 
the  usual  interrogative  sign  after  n  in  the  first  clause.  See  Lex. 
B.  The  Hebrew  construction  in  the  last  clause,  if  filled  out, 
would  run  thus  :  Or  whether  both  of  them  shall  he  good  as  one  [of 
them  is'],  i.  e.  alike  good.  Sentiment :  '  Do  your  duty,  and  trust 
Providence  for  the  issue.' 

(7)  For  the  light  is  sweet,  and  pleasant  is  it  to  the  eyes  to  see  the  sun. 

The  ^  at  the  beginning  introduces  a  species  of  causal  clause, 
and  is  often  employed  in  like  manner,  §  152.  B.  c.  This  is  a 
reason,  then,  why  one  should  industriously  provide  for  life,  as  he 
had  just  been  advised  to  do.  With  all  its  evils,  life  intermingles 
many  enjoyments.  As  only  the  living  can  see  the  sun,  it  may  be 
taken  here  as  "  the  light  of  life."  Light  stands  connected  with 
enjoyment.  So  Eurip.  Iphig.  in  Aulis,  v.  1218  :  ridv  yaQ  to  q)(os 
^XtTzeir. 

(8)  But  if  a  man  should  hve  many  years,  let  him  rejoice  in  all  of  them ; 
yet,  let  him  remember  the  days  of  darkness,  for  they  will  be  many.  All  that 
cometh  [into  the  world]  is  vanity. 

DlJifi  with  the  article,  to  designate  an  individual  particular 
man  and  not  the  genus,  although  what  is  said  might  apply  to 
all.  We  say  a  man,  in  such  a  case,  i.  e.  any  or  every  individual 
man  ;  which  in  Hebrew  would  be  D^JJ'^S  •  —  ^'=^?  ?  hortative,  let 
him  rejoice,  not  a7id  should  rejoice.  The  writer  then  is  no  gloomy 
luckless  wight,  brooding  constantly  over  the  evils  of  life,  and 
never  looking  except  upon  the  dark  side  of  the  picture.    He 


Chap.  XL  9,  10.  273 

advises  to  enjoy  all  that  we  can  rationally  enjoy.  But  still,  we 
must  never  forget  that  we  have  to  suffer,  as  well  as  to  act  and 
enjoy.  The  days  of  darkness,  i.  e.  of  suffering  and  sorrow,  will 
come,  and  will  be  many.  The  reason  of  this  is  adverted  to  in 
the  last  brief  clause.  All  that  cometh  is  vanity,  i.  e.  all  that  come 
into  the  world  ;  comp.  1 :  4,  t<a  "li^ ,  generation  cometh  into  the 
W'Orld.  Or  we  may  make  t<2  a  participial  noun,  every  comer, 
which  of  course  means  every  one  who  is  horn.  Since  this  is  the 
case,  viz.  that  all  who  come  into  the  world  are  destined  to  a 
course  of  trial  by  suffering  and  sorrow,  there  is  reason  or  ground 
for  expecting  days  of  darkness,  even  many  of  them. 

(9)  Rejoice,  0  young  man,  in  tliy  youth,  and  let  thy  heart  cheer  thee  in 
the  days  of  thine  early  life,  and  walk  thou  in  the  way  of  thy  desire,  and  by 
the  sight  of  thine  ejves;  but  know  thou,  that  respecting  all  these  God  will 
bring  thee  into  judgment. 

In  V.  8  he  had  said,  that  one  should  rejoice  during  all  the  many 
years  that  he  may  live.  Here  he  specificates  that  portion  of  life 
when  enjoyment  is  most  attainable.  This,  of  course,  is  the  earlier 
period  of  life.  Therefore  the  young  man,  (for  such  an  one  has 
special  ability  to  comply  with  his  injunction),  is  particularly  ex- 
horted to  do  so.  —  Li  thy  youth,  i.  e.  during  thy  youth  ;  not  that 
youth  is  the  object  to  be  rejoiced  in,  but  the  season  for  joy.  Walk 
in  the  ivays  of  thy  desire,  lit.  of  thy  heart,  which  is  the  seat  of  de- 
sire.— •'l^^'^^n^ ,  as  written  and  pointed,  would  indicate  things  seen; 
the  Qeri  reads  njt'^^ii,  i.  e.  the  const,  state  of  the  sing.,  and  mean- 
ing sight  or  seeing.  This  is  doubtless  the  correct  reading ;  for  the 
seeing  of  the  eyes  is  what  excites  desire  in  man,  and  thus  in- 
fluences his  whole  conduct.  In  other  words :  '  Whatever  thou 
seest  and  desirest,  which  would  increase  thy  happiness,  enjoy  it.  — 
But  hioio  ivell,  i.  e.  remember  in  the  midst  of  all  thine  enjoyment, 
that  God  will  bring  thee  into  judgment  for  the  manner  in  which 
everything  of  this  nature  is  accomplished.'  The  purport  of  the 
last  clause  may  be  stated  thus :  '  Abuse  not  his  blessings  and  thy 
comforts  or  pleasures.  He  will  surely  call  thee  to  an  account 
for  all  that  thou  doest.'  —  In  this  world  ?  —  or  in  the  next  ?  Hit- 
zig  says :  In  the  first ;  and  so  he  refers  to  old  age  as  the  season 
of  judgment  and  retribution.     The  true  state  of  this  matter,  in 


274  Chap.  XL  10. 

the  book  before  us,  I  have  endeavoured  to  investigate  in  my 
remarks  on  3  :  17  above. 

(10)  Put  away  vexation  from  thy  heart,  and  remove  evil  from  thy  flesh, 
for  youth,  like  the  morning-dawn,  is  vanity. 

Put  away  from  thy  heart,  because  the  heart  is  tlie  seat  or  source 
ofvexatio?i  or  incUg7iation  at  ^nfi'ev'm^.  ~  Evil  from  thy  flesh,  that 
is,  thy  corporeal  physical  frame.     The  first  precept  respects  the 
mind,  the  second,  the  body ;  both  of  these  make  up  self,  or  the 
entire  man.     The  two  verbs  are  in  Hiph.  Imper.  apoc,  because 
they  are  hortative.     The  paragogic  forms  in  Hiph.  belong  only  to 
the  1st  pers.  sing,  and  plur. ;  the  others  are  contracted;  see  §  48.  4. 
"i^ri  from  ^siD .  —  This  is  merely  following  on  in  the  train  of  ad- 
vice given  in  v.  9.     There  the  command  is,  to  do  something  posi- 
tive in  the  v/ay  of  enjoyment ;  here  it  is,  to  shun  or  avoid  evil 
and  suffering.     Taking  both  together  the  amount  is  :   '  Enjoy  all 
that  a  sober,  rational  man,  in  view  of  a  day  of  retribution,  can 
enjoy,  and  avoid  all  the  evil  and  suffering  that  can  be  properly 
avoided.'    But  why  is  this  so  strongly  urged  upon  the  young  2 
Plainly,  because  that  even  they,  although  in  the  best  estate  of 
man,  hold  life  by  a  very  frail  tenure.     "  Man  in  his  best  estate  is 
altogether  vanity."      Therefore,  as  even  youth  is  so  frail  and 
evanescent,  make  the  best  of  it  that  can  be  made,  keeping  a 
retribution  always  in  sight.     It  is  almost  as  if  he  said :   Then  or 
never.  —  m^n;i'ni ,  lit.  and  the  early  dawn ;  but  the  "i  here  is  one 
of  comparison,  and  hardly  differs  in  meaning  from  2.     It  might 
be  translated  even.     If  the  sentence  were  filled  out  it  would  run 
thus  :    Youth  is  vanity,  and  so  early  dawn  is  vanity ;  i,  e.  one  is  as 
vain   as  the  other.     Hence  the  use  of  1.  in  such  cases,  as  the 
connecting  link  between  the  two  parts  of  a  comparison.     Both 
the  objects  named  are  equal  to  a  tertium  quid,  and  therefore  one 
is  like  the  other. 

If  a  right  view  of  vs.  8—10  has  been  presented,  it  follows  of 
course,  that  the  exegesis  is  erroneous  which  assumes  that  v.  9 
is  sarcastic  or  ironical.  Certainly  this  verse  is  only  a  comment 
on  y.  8,  where  it  is  said  to  every  one,  n^b^  t^ra ,  i.  e.  evermore 
^^  J^VM'  No  one  thinks  of  irony  here.  Again,  in  v.  10,  we 
have  a  clear  indication  tliat  tlie  advice  in  v,  9  is  serious  and  bona 


Chap.  XIL  1.  275 

Jide.  Certainly  there  can  be  no  objection  to  Coheleth's  advice 
here,  associated  as  it  is  with  all  his  cautions ;  none  except  on  the 
part  of  mere  strenuous  ascetics. 

Chap.  XII. 

(1)  Remember  thy  Creator  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  before  the  dnys  of 
evil  come,  and  the  years  draw  nigli,  when  thou  shalt  say  :  I  have  no  pleas- 
ure in  them. 

?]^>;"i^3 ,  plur.  like  other  appellations  of  God,  both  nouns  and 
adjectives;  see  §  lOG.  2.  J.  — ^i'^rH^ns,  plur.  fern.,  §  106.  2.  a. 
The  plur.  form  comes  from  the  idea  of  an  extended  period.  — 
Before  the  days  of  evil,  etc.,  lit.  until  that  the  days  of  evil  have  not 
come,  which  would  sound  harshly  in  English.  The  n^^^in  with 
the  art.  refers  to  the  !-i^"i  of  11:  10.  Hitzig  finds,  in  the  men- 
tion of  days  and  years  here,  evidence  that  the  time  of  retribution 
is  the  season  of  old  age,  when  evil  is  wont  to  come  ;  for,  as  he 
avers,  "  the  dead  have  no  division  of  time."  But  is  this  his 
philosophy,  or  that  of  Coheleth  ?  Not  of  the  latter,  surely  ;  for,  in 
the  case  before  us,  both  days  and  years  have  the  same  meaning 
for  substance,  i.  e.  both  merely  designate  time.  I  am  aware  that 
time  so  divided,  and  philosophically  considered,  is  not  strictly 
predicable  of  a  future  state  ;  but  still,  the  Scriptures  speak  every- 
where more  humano,  or  in  the  popular  way,  in  regard  to  the 
future.  Ages  of  ages  is  a  frequent  designation  of  it.  That  the 
writer  has  old  age  in  view,  in  this  verse,  I  should  freely  admit. 
But  I  do  not  see  how  this  would  affect  the  meaning  of  11:9: 
God  will  bring  thee  into  judgment.  According  to  Hitzig,  this 
Avould  be  merely  equivalent  to  saying:  'God  will  make  thee  to 
become  an  old  man.'  But  does  not  the  O.  Test,  everywhere 
reckon  long  life  as  a  blessing  1  What  saith  the  fifth  command- 
ment ?  Ex.  20 :  12?  And  yet  this,  if  Hitzig  is  in  the  right,  is 
held  up  in  terrorern  here,  as  an  indication  of  a  penal  period  or 
process.  This  will  hardly  do.  Old  age  has  indeed  its  sorrows, 
and  the}  are  in  some  respects  aggravated  by  increasing  bodily 
weakness,  and  inability  to  endure  or  resist  them.  —  But  it  has  its 
comforts  too ;  for  ""the  hoary  head  is  a  crown  of  glory,  when 
found  in  the  way  of  righteousness."  The  orthodox,  then,  are  not 
the  only  class  of  critics,  (as  Hitzig  sometimes  insinuates),  who 


276  Chap.  XII.  2,  3. 

practice  the  Hineinexegcsiren  upon  tlie  sacred  text.  It  needed 
some  resolution,  at  any  rate,  to  make  up  and  j^roduce  sucli  an 
argument  as  that  of  Hitzig  now  before  us,  to  show  that  Coheleth 
neither  knew  nor  thought  anything  of  a  future  judgment. 

Thus  much  is  true,  viz.  that  tlie  clays  of  evil  here  mentioned, 
are  the  days  of  declining  life,  the  infirmities  and  sorrows  of  which 
are  most  vividly  painted  in  the  sequel.  Accumulated  infirmities, 
with  a  certain  prospect  of  their  increase,  are  sufficient  to  account 
for  the  exclamation  of  the  sufferer  :  /  have  no  2yleasure  in  them  ! 
—  ^r^^-nni ,  Hiph.  Perf.  of  ":3 .  —  j'sn  .  .  .  "j^i^ ,  here  the  const,  "px 
has  two  intervening  words  between  itself  and  the  Gen.  following 
and  governing  it.  But  any  intervention  of  this  kind  must  be  of 
circumstantial  words  only.  Otherwise,  the  const,  and  Gen.  must 
be  placed  in  immediate  proximity. 

(2)  Before  the  sun  and  the  light  sliall  grow  dark;  and  the  moon  and  the 
stars;  and  the  cU)uds  return  after  the  rain. 

The  first  part  is  imagery  to  portray  the  joyous  season  of  life. 
Light  is  the  symbol  of  joy.  '  Before  this  light  is  withdrawn, 
do  thou  remember  thy  Creator'  —  is  the  sentiment.  But  what 
is  it  to  remember  him  ?  It  is  to  fear,  to  love,  and  to  obey  him, 
ever  keeping  in  mind  that  he  will  bring  thee  to  judgment.  — 
After  moon  and  stars  '^'::>'^'r^'^,  {shall  grow  dark)  is  implied,  from  the 
preceding  clause.  I  have  joined  the  light  with  the  sun,  because 
the  accents  do  so,  and  because  there  is  ground  to  suppose,  that 
the  writer  means  to  present  two  couplets.  —  The  clouds  return^ 
etc.,  this  happens  only  in  the  winter  or  rainy  season,  in  Pales- 
tine. The  summer  showers  are  short  and  violent,  and  are  suc- 
ceeded by  a  blazing  sun.  But  in  winter,  day  after  day,  the 
clouds  return,  and  rains  are  incessant  during  much  of  the 
time.  This  season  then,  is  the  image  of  old  age,  the  winter  of 
life.  We  of  the  present  time  call  youth  its  sjmiig,  manhood  its 
summer,  and  old  age  its  winter.  Sentiment :  *■  Be  mindful  of 
God,  before  the  days  of  aggravated  sorrow  come,  before  the 
declining  period  or  winter  of  life  sets  in.'  —  The  imagery  is  vivid 
and  beautiful. 

(3)  In  the  day  when  tlic  keepers  of  the  house  sliall  \)e  trenudous,  and  the 
strong  men  bow  tliemselves,  and  the  grinders  pause  because  tho}'  arc  become 
few,  and  those  that  look  out  of  the  windows  are  darkened. 


Chap.  XII.  0.  277 

This  verse  is  subordinate  to  the  preceding  one,  t'>3  being 
used  instead  of  repeating  nrx  "iv.  —  ^irr ,  from  r^iT,  Imperf.  Kal, 
t  for  !iT.  But  who  are  the  keepers  of  the  Jioiise  ?  Evidently,  the 
physical  frame  of  the  old  man  is  here  compared  to  a  house  —  a 
comparison  of  the  human  frame  often  made  in  the  Old  Test, 
and  in  the  New,  Job  4:19.  2  Cor.  5 :  1.  2  Pet.  1:  13,  14.  The 
keepers  of  this  house  are  the  arms,  specially  the  hands  and  fore- 
arms, which  often  become  tremulous  in  old  age.  They  are 
called  keepers,  because  they  are  more  specially  employed  in 
warding  oft'  evil  or  assault.  These  keepers  are  here  regarded  as 
being  out  of  the  house,  not  in  it ;  just  as  the  arms  are  separate 
from  the  body  of  a  man,  and  extraneous  to  it.  —  And  the  men  of 
strength  bow  themselves,  seems  to  mean  the  legs,  which  are  strong 
in  their  structure,  being  formed  both  to  support  the  body,  and  to 
convey  it  hither  and  thither.  It  needs  strength  to  bear  such  a 
burden  and  perform  such  a  task.  The  boicing  is  the  usual  crook- 
ing at  the  knees,  which  takes  place  in  old  age,  because  the  mus- 
cles are  relaxed,  and  will  not  support  the  weight  of  the  bodj 
without  bending.  In  war,  to  be  swift  in  the  race  of  pursuit  or 
flight,  and  persevering  in  the  march,  required  great  strength  in 
the  lower  limbs  ;  and  he  who  was  orAvg  ttoScov  was  accounted 
among  the  best  warriors,  i.  e.  among  the  b'^n  '^■^'SN .  To  say  the 
least,  if  the  appellation  is  not  altogether  congruous  for  the  legs, 
it  is  difficult  to  find  any  part  of  a  man  to  which  what  is  said  so 
well  applies.  —  And  the  grinders  cease  or  pause ;  the  latter  is  the 
better  translation,  for  the  pausing  seems  to  be  in  order  to  take 
rest,  since  they  are  overtasked  in  grinding  because  of  their 
fewness.  The  teeth  are  doubtless  meant  by  the  grinders;  and 
we  apply  this  word  in  the  same  way  to  the  teeth.  When  a  few 
of  these  have  to  do  all  the  work  of  a  full  set,  some  pause  in  the 
labour  is  occasionally  necessary.  —  ^"^''J'-.  •,  verb  denom.  from  'j;v-o  , 
in  Piel  and  in  pause  (which  occasions  the  Tseri),  meaning  grow 
few,  become  few,  not  simjjly  are  few,  which  would  be  Kal.  — 
Those  which  look  out  etc.,  are  plainly  the  eyes.  The  ejnj-socket 
is  like  to  a  perforation  for  the  window  ;  the  eije-lashes  may  be 
comi)ared  to  lattices  in  the  window,  which,  in  oriental  windows,  are 
employed  instead  of  glass.  Latticed  windows  would  be  an  exact 
literal  version.  But  nothing  would  be  gained  by  such  a  transla- 
24 


278  Chap.  XII.  4. 

tion.  It  would  rather  mislead  the  reader,  because  it  would  seem 
to  point  him  only  to  some  peculiar  kind  of  a  window,  when  the 
idea  is  in  fact  generic.  The  weakening  of  the  sight,  or  darken- 
ing of  the  eyes,  in  old  age,  is  too  well  known  to  need  description  ; 
see  in  Gen.  27  :  1.  1  Sam.  3 :  2.  1  K.  14.:  ^.  — Eyes  arid  teeth 
are  both  fem.  in  Hebrew,  hence  the  fern,  participles  agreeing 
with  them. 

(4)  And  closed  are  the  doors  on  the  street,  while  the  noise  of  the  mill  is 
low,  for  it  rises  to  the  voice  of  a  sparrow,  and  all  the  daughters  of  song  are 
brought  low. 

Doors  of  thy  mouth  or  lips,  are  expressions  in  Ps.  141:  3.  Mic. 
5  :  7.  The  doors  of  his  face  is  employed  in  Job  41:  14.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  lips  are  designated  by  the  doors  on 
the  street,  i.  e.  like  the  outside  double  or  two-valved  door  of  a 
house,  the  way  of  entrance  into  it,  as  the  lips  are  the  entrance  to 
the  mouth.  On  the  street  serves  merely  to  show  that  the  en- 
trance or  outside  door  is  meant.  —  Are  shut  or  closed,  expresses 
the  position  of  the  lips,  when  the  teeth  are  gone.  They  are 
shut  or  compressed  closely  together.  —  Noise  of  the  mill  is  low  — 
but  what  is  the  mill  ?  Not  the  teeth,  for  they  are  called  grinders 
above.  There  seems  to  be  no  tolerable  explanation  of  this, 
excepting  that  it  is  intended  to  designate  the  mouth,  in  which 
the  grinders  are.  The  noise  is  that  made  by  the  voice,  as  Hitzig 
and  Heiligs.  interpret  it.  In  the  aged  this  is  weakened  and 
low.  This  too  is  a  trait  of  old  age,  which  is  further  developed  in 
the  sequel.  To  interpret  the  clause,  (which  some  do),  as  mean- 
ing the  noise  made  hy  chewing,  is  said  to  be  incongruous.  But 
may  it  not  be  said  in  reply,  that  old  people  rarely  undertake  to 
eat  hard  substances,  and  the  chewing  of  soft  ones  will  make  only 
a  low  noise  ?  If  niinbri ,  the  grinders  =  mill-stones,  is  employed 
(in  v.  4)  to  designate  the  teeth,  then  n^f^L^n  may  be  the  mill-house^ 
in  which  the  grinders  are,  i.  e.  the  mouth.  Shall  the  bip ,  noise, 
be  referred,  then,  to  the  cheioing  of  soft  food,  such  as  the  aged  must 
take,  because  the  noise  in  question  in  such  a  case  is  bs":3 ,  quite 
low  ?  Or  must  it  refer  to  the  voice  of  the  aged,  as  stated  above  ? 
Neither  of  the  alternatives  is  very  inviting.  However,  as 
eatitig  seems  to  be  despatched  in  the  third  verse,  there  is  some 


Chap.  XH.  4.  279 

incongruity  in  supposing  it  to  be  again  introduced  here.  But  a 
greater  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this,  is,  that  the  noise  of  eating 
cannot  well  be  a  subject  or  Nom.  to  the  next  clause  ;  it  must  be 
the  voice  of  the  mouth.  In  a  case  so  doubtful  and  obscure,  this 
would  seem  to  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  giving  this  latter  exe- 
gesis the  preference. 

For  it  rises  to  the  voice  of  the  sparrow,  i.  e.  attains  unto  the  voice 
of  a  sparrow ;  comp.  n^p  in  Zeph.  3:8.  1  Sam.  22  :  13.  Mic.  2  : 
8,  for  a  like  sense.  Translated  thus,  the  last  two  clauses  give  the 
grounds  for  the  assertion  in  the  preceding  clause,  or  at  any  rate 
furnish  illustrations  of  it.  —  1. ,  for,  §  152.  B.  c.  The  voice  of  a 
sparrow  is  a  very  slender  one ;  and  a  voice  not  louder  than  this 
may  well  be  called  low.  Some  intei-pret  this  as  meaning :  '  He 
(the  old  man)  rises  up  from  his  couch  very  early,  as  soon  as  the 
voice  of  the  sparrow  is  heard.'  But  where  is  the  proof  that  the 
sparrow  is  an  early  matin-bird  ?  —  or  that  the  old  rnan  would  be 
apt  to  hear  his  tiny  voice  ?  If  it  were  the  crowing  of  the  cock, 
the  exegesis  would  seem  more  probable  than  it  now  does.  And 
last,  but  not  least:  Where  is  the  proof  that  aged  and  infirm 
people  are  wont  to  be  early  risers  ?  Early  they  may  wake  ;  but 
they  are  not  wont  to  rise  as  soon  as  they  wake.  Then  again, 
Diip"^  is  not  the  word  for  such  rising ;  we  should  expect  nis?;^ . 

All  the  daughters  of  song  is  a  locus  vexatas.  Still,  some  things 
are  plain.  Sons  of  men  are  men  ;  daughters  of  men  means  women. 
Why  may  not  daughters  of  song  mean  songs'?  Daughters  of 
Tyre  —  Babylon  —  Philistia,  etc.,  means  Tyrians,  Babylonians, 
Philistines,  etc.  So  in  the  Talmud  :  ^ip  na ,  simply  voice,  (prob- 
ably =  echo).  All  songs  or  singing,  in  old  age,  usually  becomes 
low-toned;  inv^"';',  Nipli.  Imperf.  from  nn'r  with  a  Dagh.  in  the 
form.  Lit.  are  depressed ;  but  I  have  translated  by  brought  low, 
because  there  seems  to  be  a  kind  of  personification  in  the  use  of 
niD3 ,  which  is  best  carried  out  by  translating  brought  loio.  Sen- 
timent :  '  All  song-singing  or  music  is  low-froned,  or  witli  a  de- 
pressed voice.'  When  the  teeth  are  gone,  and  the  lips  cave  in, 
as  before  stated,  singing  must  necessarily  be  of  the  sort  here 
described.  If  the  two  last  clauses  are  not  properly  grounds  or 
reasons  for  tlie  preceding  one,  they  at  least  help  to  establish  it 
by  illustration. 


280  Chap.  XII.  5. 

(5)  Moreover,  they  are  afraid  of  that  which  is  high,  and  tenors  are  in  the 
way,  and  the  almond  disgusts,  and  the  locust  is  burdonsoine,  and  the  kn))per 
lias  no  force ;  for  man  is  going  to  his  cverUi^ting  home,  and  the  mourners  go 
around  the  streets. 

Afraid  of  that  which  is  high,  because  mounting  a  lieiglit  makes 
the  aged  pant  for  breath.     The  action  of  the  lungs  is  constringed 
by  age,  which  contracts  the  muscles  of  the  breast.     To  mount  a 
narrow  height,  e.  g.  a  tower  or  precipice,  would  also  create  sensa- 
tions of  dizziness.   They  shun  both.   In  the  latter  case,  the  terror 
of  falling  lies  in  the  way,-  and  constantly  besets  them.  —  And  the 
almond  disgnsfs,  not  the   almond-tree  blooms,  deriving  Viss^  from 
Y^z ,  and  making  it  =  -j'r ,  and  so,  as  the  almond-tree  blooms  in 
the  winter,  this  class  of  critics  say  that  it  represents  tlie  hoary  head 
of  the  old  man.     But  then  —  the  almond-blossom  is  not  ivhite,  but 
pink-colored,  or  of  carnation  hue.     Besides,  yii)^'^  for  yz'^  has  no 
parallel  in  Heb.  orthography.      The  root,  then,  must  be  "N5 , 
which  means   to  despise,  contemn,  treat  icith  disgust.     In  Hiph., 
then,  it  would  mean  :  causes  disgust ;  and  there,  it  seems  to  me,  it 
should  be  reckoned,  and  pointed  y^}"^ ;  •  unless,  indeed,  with  Ge- 
senius,   we  admit  a  Syriasm  in  the  present  pointing,  viz.  "■j'Ni;|' 
more  Sgrorum  for  1'^5D^"     This,  however,  would  not  alter  the 
meaning  of  the  w^ord.     The  almond,  once  a  favorite  fruit,  now 
only  creates  disgust,  for  want  of  power  to  masticate  it.     There  is 
no  need  of  an  Ace.  case  after  the  verb,  for  to  cause  disgust,  is  in 
itself  intransitive.     Still,  if  c-  stiff,  were  supplied,  then  we  should 
translate  thus  :  makes  them  to  loathe.    But  this  is  quite  superfluous. 
Hitzig  proposes  to  read  j'Xp, ,  and  translates  thus  :  The  almond- 
tree  despises  [them].     Of  course  he  takes  the  tree  as  a  mere  sym- 
bol in  this  case  ;  like  as  the  palm-tree  (in  Cant.  7  : 9)  is  the  symbol 
of  the  bride,  on  account  of  its  slender  tallness  and  its  sweet  fruit. 
In  Cant,  the  fruit  is  represented  as  accessible ;  but  here  the  fruit 
of  the  almond-tree  is  inaccessible  to  the  old  man,  who  cannot 
ascend  tJiat  luhich  is  Jdgh.     This,  as  lie  avers,  is  re})resented  in  a 
kind  of  poetic  manner,  viz.  the  almond-tree  looks  down  with  con- 
tempt on  the  old  man,  who  cannot  climb  it,  and  mocks  his  etibrts 
to  obtain  its  treasures.    A  congruous  sense,  this  may  well  be  called, 
when  we  compare  it  as  related  to  the  first  part  of  the  verse  — 
afraid  of  heights.    But  in  this  case,  the  verb  becomes  so  far  active, 
that  it  seems  to  need  a  complement  or  object,  while  none  is  sup- 


Chap.  XII.  5.  281 

plied.  On  this  account  I  must  incline  to  the  preceding  view  —  the 
almotid  occasions  disgust.  I  am  the  more  inclined  to  tliis,  on 
account  of  the  next  following  clauses,  which  stand  connected 
with  the  failure  of  appetite  ;  so  that  both  are  congruous  with 
each  other. 

a:n  is  a  species  of  the  locust  tribe  winged  and  edible  (see  Lev. 
11:  22)  ;   which  passage  allows  the  Hebrews  to  eat  four  kinds  of 
the  locust.    Some  species  of  them  are  generally  eaten  in  the  P^ast, 
and  brought  into  the  markets  for  sale,  even  at  the  present  time. 
The  hard-shelled  ones  resemble   a  crab-fish  in  point  of  taste. 
Some  of  them  are  even  regarded  as  a  great  delicacy.     Hence  the 
sentiment  in  the  text :  '  Even  the  most  delicate  viands  —  among 
which  is  the  eatable  locust  —  become  a  burden  to  the  aged  man, 
whose  appetite  fails.'    This  is  perfectly  natural.  Delicate  and  rich 
viands  disgust  an  enfeebled  stomach,  which  cannot  digest  them. 
The  most  simple  food  is  the  only  food  that  can  be  safely  taken, 
in  these  circumstances.     Hence  the  locust  bsnp^  (Hiph.  ofbno, 
§  53.  2),  makes  itself  a  burden,  i.  e.  becomes  burdensome,  being 
difficult  of  digestion   and   occasioning   nausea   in  the  stomach. 
Hitzig  gives  the  passage  quite  another  turn,  referring  it,  by  vir- 
tue of  a  resemblance  between  ^^n  and  njy  {voluptuous  delight),  to 
sexual  intercourse,  which  becomes  forced  rather  than  voluntary. 
But  this  seems  quite  unsatisfactory,  when  a  plainer  and  more 
facile  meaning  presents  itself.     Heiligs.  is  still  more  imaginary. 
"As  the  locust,  when  its  wings  are  grown,  attempts  to  fly,  but 
does  this  at  first  with  great  effort ;   even  so  the  old  man,  about  to 
'shift  off  this  mortal  coil,'  laboriously  attempts  his  flight."  — 
Altogether  invitd  Minerva.    The  most  simple  meaning  is  nearly 
always  the  preferable  one  ;  and  here  it  is  altogether  the  most  con- 
gruous. —  And  the  kapper  (in  vulgar  usage  spelled  caper)  is  inert, 
or  has  no  force ;  so  Van  der  Palm,   De  Wette,  Gesenius,  and 
others.    Hitzig  supplies  an  implied  rr^^^  after  'nsn ,  and  supposes 
the  allusion  to  be  made  to  an  implied  agreement,  that  the  kapper 
should  aid  the  n^n  =  ns^"  amatory  pleasure,  which  agreement,  in 
this  cas( ,  is  frustrated  or  annulled ;  ingenious,  indeed,  but  too 
forced  and  far-fetched.      The  kapper  was  used  as  a  stimulant  for 
all  the  natural  appetites,  inasmuch  as  it  gave  life  and  animation 
to  the  system.    Specially  was  it  regarded  as  a  venereal  stimulant. 
In  this  last  sense  it  may  be  taken  here.    Food  disrelishes,  even 

24* 


282  Chap.  XII.  5. 

the  delicate  viands  are  a  burden.  With  the  appetite  for  this,  the 
other  natural  appetites  decline,  so  that  venery  becomes  rather  dis- 
gusting than  alluring  ;  at  any  rate,  in  extreme  old  age  it  becomes 
mischievous  in  most  cases.  The  meaning  of  nsi^nxr:  seems  to  be 
well  settled ;  (see  Buxt.  Lex.  Chald.,  and  Ges.  Thesaurus  s.  v.). 
"iBn  comes  from  I'nQ ,  and  is  3d  Praet.  Hiph.,  and  one  of  its 
meanings  is,  irritum  fecit.  It  Avould  seem  to  demand  an  Ace.  of 
object  after  it,  at  least  an  implied  one.  It  usually  connects  with 
such  objects  as  covenant^  laiv,  promise,  voiv,  etc.  Ges.  (Lex.) 
makes  it  intransitive  in  our  text ;  and  so  it  may  be  (§  52),  for 
Hipliil  is  often  so.  But  if  we  insist  on  the  active  transitive  here, 
then  n'^'nz ,  or  some  equivalent  word,  may  be  supplied,  the  verb 
being  taken  as  a  constructio  pregnans,  §  138.  So  :  the  kapper 
hreaketh  promise.  It  was  expected,  from  its  qualities,  to  rouse  by 
excitement ;  and  this  is  what  it  usually  does  ;  but  now  it  frustrates 
Wishes  or  expectations.  It  becomes  inert,  i.  e.  produces  no  effect. 
This,  indeed,  is  not  a  literal  translation,  but  it  is,  in  effect,  giving 
the  sense  of  the  passage,  which,  like  those  that  precede  it,  is 
elliptical. 

The  failure  of  these  powers  and  appetites  is  indicative  of  what 
must  speedily  follow. — For  man  is  going  to  his  eternal  home, 
TjVn,  ahiturus,  about  to  depart.  Not  has  gone,  for  his  death  is  after- 
wards described  in  vs.  6,  7.  As  yet  it  is  a  future  occurrence. — 
Eternal  home  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Scriptures  ;  but  the  Tar- 
gum  on  Is.  42  : 1 1  mentions  eternal  houses  or  homes,  i.  e.  sepulchres ; 
the  book  of  Tobit  (3  :  6)  calls  the  grave  i;ono^  lUMViog  ;  and  the 
Egyptians  called  their  catacombs  didiovg  oi'xov^'.  Comp.  the  senti- 
ment in  3  :  20,  21,  and  9  :  3 — 6.  Such  a  name  for  the  grave, 
does  not  necessarily  imply  a  disbelief  of  a  future  resurrection 
(Dan.  12  :  2),  but  only  that  those  who  are  laid  in  the  sepulchre 
have  a  habitation  that  will  never  be  exchanged,  as  houses  among 
j(he  living  are.  A  final  Jiome  is  a  familiar  expression  even  with  us. 
We  cannot  defend  it  philosophically  or  theologically,  but  it  is  still 
in  popular  use.  Just  that  is  meant  here  by  the  Hebrew.  —  And 
the  mourners  go  around  the  streets,  Ilitzig  refers  to  mourning  in 
anticipation  of  evil ;  as  e.  g.  2  Sam.  12  :  16.  Ps.  35  :  13.  Esth.  4: 
3.  Jer.  48  :  38.  But  why  not  render  iHl  ^^s&l ,  the  mourners  loill 
surround  or  go  around,  etc.  ?  Then  the  one  occurrence  is  as  much 
future  as  the  other.     This  is  certainly  the  more  natural.     The 


Chap.  XII.  6.  283 

only  difficulty  is,  that  1  convcrsive  before  a  verb  is  seldom  indepd 
to  be  seen,  in  tlie  book  before  us.  The  marching  around  in  the  street, 
looks  much  like  the  funeral  procession,  accompanied  by  artificial 
or  hired  mourners,  as  is  usual  in  the  P^ast.  In  all  the  cases  of  an- 
ticipated mourning  referred  to  above,  there  is  nothing  that  indicates 
£^ny  procession.  On  this  ground,  I  must  refer  ^nno  to  the  Pres.,  as  to 
sense  (§121.  3),  in  the  same  manner  as  if  a  Pres.  verb  preceded  it. 
The  dead  man,  going  to  cm  endless  home,  i.  e.  the  grave,  is  accom- 
panied by  a  procession  winding  through  the  streets.  For  such  pro- 
cessions, see  2  Sam.  3:31.  Jer.  9  : 1 G — 20,  where  is  a  full  account ; 
also  2  Chron.  35  :  25.  Matt.  9  :  23.  11: 17.  Mark  5  :  38.  Luke  7  :  32. 
The  same  custom  of  hired  mourners  in  procession,  is  kept  up,  in 
the  East,  at  the  present  time.  For  p^ii'2,  see  Is.  15  :  3.  It  charac- 
terizes a  public  mourning  by  procession.  The  last  verb,  in  the 
Perf.,  denotes  what  is  usual,  oft  repeated,  etc.,  §  1 24.  3.  h. 

(6)  While  the  silver  cord  is  not  broken,  nor  the  cup  of  .qoklcn  [oil]  crushed, 
nor  the  pitcher  dashed  in  pieces  at  the  fountain,  nor  the  wheel  crushed  at  the 
cistern. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  a  resumption  of  the  particles 
in  V.  2,  showing  that  the  same  subject  is  still  continued.  —  pn-n;; 
has  a  substitute  proposed  in  the  Qeri  (pn'^.'^),  probably  because 
the  meaning  of  the  first  verb  {to  remove  to  a  distance^  seems  in- 
congruous. But  pn'n  means  to  bind,  and  it  has  no  Niphal,  unless 
this  in  our  text  be  one.  There  is  no  evidence,  however,  even  if  a 
!Niph.  form  be  admitted,  that  it  would  be  privcdive  in  its  meaning, 
viz.  to  unbind,  to  sever,  (the  sense  here  demanded)  ;  nor  can  this 
be  deemed  probable  in  respect  to  a  Niph.  conjugation.  The  proba- 
bility then  is,  that  here,  (as  in  the  case  of  "'•nn-; ,  9:4),  the  n  is 
transposed,  and  therefore  that  the  word  should  be  written  p"*-;! . 
In  Arab,  p'^n  means  laceravit,  an  appropriate  meaning  as  applied 
to  the  silver  cord  or  chain,  in  the  present  case,  and  so  appropriate, 
that  we  need  not  hesitate  to  adopt  it.  —  Silver  cord  must  mean  the 
silver  chain  by  which  the  lamp  is  suspended.  —  "j'^ip ,  Imperf.  Kal. 
of  "•J'n,  (see  §  6G.  n.  9,  for  the  "i  instead  of  '->),  and  is  intransitive 
with  a  passive  meaning. —  T;^?^?  conit.,  usually  trarislated  as 
meaning  the  knob  or  bowl  of  the  lamp,  which  holds  the  oil.  But 
n^Mri  can  hardly  mean  gold  here.  In  Zech.  4  :  12  it  means  oil ; 
and  tropically  so  in  Job  37  :  22,  i.  e.  something  of  golden  colour. 


284  Chap.  XII.  7. 

Here,  if  silver  cord  represents  the  thread  of  life,  then  the  bowl 
would  seem  to  symbolize  the  body,  and  the  oil  (a  liquid)  the  liquid 
air  which  fills  the  lungs.  But  to  make  the  life-principle  silver, 
and  the  body  gold,  would  seem  to  be  incongruous.  We  may 
rather  acquiesce  in  the  more  general  symbol,  viz.  the  lamp  of  life 
may  have  the  cord  by  which  it  hangs  broken,  and  the  lamp  be 
dashed  in  pieces,  which  holds  the  oil  that  sui3plies  the  fiarae 
of  life.  —  '13  the  pitcher,  let  down  to  draw  up  the  water.  This 
may  be  easily  dashed  in  pieces,  ('^3T^"n  =  our  Eng.  w^ord  shiver), 
at  the  fountain  or  source  of  the  water.  —  Wheel  crushed,  viz.  the 
wheel  which  raises  the  water  by  the  winding  up  of  the  draw- 
rope  upon  it.  When  such  things  befall  the  water-apparatus,  water 
ceases  to  be  had.  So,  to  compare  the  air  we  breathe  with  the 
water  which  we  drink,  when  the  apparatus  for  breathing  is  broken 
and  disabled,  the  breath  of  course  must  cease.  Beyond  this 
general  comparison  we  cannot  well  go ;  and  this  is  sufl&cient,  and 
is  also  striking. 

(7)  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  to  God 
who  gave  it. 

That  man  is  made  of  dust  is  often  recognized  in  the  O.  Test., 
and  the  representation  takes  its  source  from  Gen.  3:19.  See 
Ps.  104:  29.  Job  34:  15.  —  As  it  was,  viz.  before  it  was  made 
into  man.  On  the  subject  of  the  spitnt,  and  its  return  to  God,  I 
must  refer  the  reader  to  the  discussion  connected  with  3 :  21. 
What  God  gave,  he  takes  back.  But  he  gave  the  body,  as  well 
as  the  spirit.  The  body,  however,  he  does  not  take  hack  to  him- 
self; nor  can  he  any  more  be  supposed  to  take  back  the  mere 
breath  of  life,  in  such  a  sense  as  that  it  returns  to  him.  If  this 
meaning  be  given  to  n^n ,  we  must  acquiesce  in  the  more  general 
meaning  of  merely  giving  and  taking  aw^ay,  without  attaching  to 
this  any  idea  respecting  how  that  is  disposed  of,  w^hich  is  taken 
away ;  which  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  the  idea  of  nrdn , 
shall  return.  Is  there  any  emanation-philosophy  to  be  discovered 
here?  Does  the  spirit  (nn)  emanate  from  God,  as  a  particle 
(so  to  speak)  of  his  beings ;  and  when  man  dies,  does  this  particle 
become  absorbed  again  in  his  immensity?  for  this  the  philosophy 
in  question  teaches.  If  there  w^ere  any  evidence  at  all  in  the 
Heb.  Scriptures  of  the  emanation-philosophy,  we  might  explain 


Chap.  XII.  8.  •    285 

the  passage  before  us  by  the  aid  of  it.  But  tlie  whole  tenor  of 
these  Scriptures  make  against  this  view.  God  and  man  are 
beings  widely  and  essentially  diverse  in  their  nature.  The  He- 
brews brought  God  down,  in  his  great  condescension,  to  watch 
over  and  to  aid  and  bless  man  ;  but  they  never  dreamed  of  ele- 
vating m:ui  into  the  i)lace  of  God.  A  moral  resemblance  man 
might  have,  and  had,  to  his  Maimer;  but  his  ontological  nature 
admitted  of  no  comparison  ;  for  how  can  created  comi)are  with 
uncreated,  finite  with  infinite  ?  To  see  his  face,  to  awake  in  the 
resurrection  and  put  on  liis  likeness  —  are  the  utmost  to  which 
the  thoughts  of  the  Hebrew  extended  or  aspired.  Then  what  is 
returning  to  Godl  Returning  to  dust,  we  understand.  The  body 
becomes  united  to  it,  or  absorbed  in  it.  But  in  what  sense  does 
vital  hrcath  {Tyn)  return  to  God  ?  This  question  still  remains, 
after  all  that  has  been  said  about  n^-i ,  and  is  more  difficult  to  be 
answered  than  Knobel  and  Hitzig  seem  to  imagine.  If  return 
has  the  like  meaning  in  both  clauses,  (the  verb  in  both  is  the 
same  in  the  Hebrew),  then  must  the  emanation-doctrine  be  recog- 
nized here.  But  w^e  have  seen  that  there  is  no  ground  for  suppos- 
ing this  to  have  been  held  by  the  Hebrew^s.  What  is  it  then,  we 
ask  again  —  what  is  it  that  returns'^  And  what  becomes  of  it  after 
its  return  ?  In  case  Ti^'i  here  means  spirit,  in  our  usual  English 
sense  of  the  word,  then  w^e  have  a>tangible  meaning.  The  soul 
returns  to  the  peculiar  and  immediate  presence  of  God,  there  to 
be  judged,  (according  to  v.  14).  In  what  other  way  can  we 
make  out  a  consistent  Hebrew  sentiment  from  this  passage? 
That  God  gave  the  spirit  of  man,  is  a  sentiment  often  repeated ; 
e.  g.  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  aU  flesh;  the  Father  of  our  spirits,  etc. 

(8)  Vanity  of  vanities,  saith  tlie  prcnclier,  all  is  vanity. 

Thus  end  the  discussions  of  th5  book,  with  the  same  sentiment 
which  was  made  its  thesis  at  the  beginning.  The  writer  has 
gone  through  the  whole  round  of  human  employment  and  enjoy- 
ment ;  and  he  comes  out  at  last  fully  with  the  sentiment,  which 
he  anrounced  at  the  beginning  as  the  thing  to  be  examined. 
Solid,  lasting,  and  unchanging  happiness  is  not  to  be  found  in 
any  worldly  occupation,  or  in  any  worldly  circumstances.  God 
has  impressed  this  truth  on  everything,  and  made  it  visible 
everywhere. 


286  Chap.  XII.  8.  Remarks. 

But  the  other  side  of  the  picture,  which  presents  man's  future 
condition  and  destiny,  he  has  only  glanced  at.  It  was  not  his  then 
present  purpose  to  aim  at  developing  this.  We  feel  it  indeed  to 
be  strange,  that  he  stops  where  he  does.  We  should  not  do  so, 
with  our  present  views.  But  before  we  condemn  him,  we  should 
at  least  become  well  acquainted  with  his  special  design  and  pur- 
poses. We  should  know  what  questions  of  the  time  were  press- 
ing upon  him ;  what  Epicureanism  he  was  called  to  encounter  on 
its  own  ground,  and  what  sensuality  needed  a  powerful  check,  by 
reasoning  within  its  own  circle.  The  book  is  an  argiimentum 
ud  hominem,  a  refutation  from  the  worldling's  own  stand-point. 
The  writer  certainly  accomplishes  one  thing ;  and  he  does  this 
effectually.  Christianity  would  lead  us  to  go  farther;  but  this, 
when  Coheleth  wrote,  was  yet  to  "  bring  life  and  immortality  to 
light."  He  stops  where  Moses  stopped  in  the  Pentateuch ;  and 
if  we  censure  him,  must  we  not  also  censure  Moses  ?  God  did 
not  reveal  everything,  not  even  every  important  thing,  under 
an  imperfect  and  preparatory  dispensation.  The  world  has  had 
its  childhood,  is  having  its  youth,  and  is  yet  to  arrive  at  complete 
manhood  —  and  then,  perhaps,  have  its  old  age.  Why  need  we 
confound  all  these  stages  of  human  progress  with  each  other ;  or 
why  think  it  strange  that  the  author,  living  under  the  first  stage, 
has  not  written  and  spoken  as  if  he  lived  under  the  second  or 
third  ?  Ouique  suum  ;  a  maxim  as  true  in  respect  to  revelation, 
as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  business  and  concerns  of  life.  Many  a 
striking  view  has  Coheleth  given  of  the  vanity  of  mere  worldly 
pursuits ;  many  a  sound  precaution  has  he  uttered,  in  respect  to 
incurring  dangers  and  temptations.  Above  all,  he  has  through- 
out maintained  and  inculcated  the  most  profound  submission  as 
to  the  mysterious  and  afflictive  dispensations  of  a  holy  Provi- 
dence. With  him,  God  is  all  in  all ;  and  there  is  no  way  of 
obtaining  safety  or  comfort  left  for  "man,  excepting  that  of  abso- 
lute and  unqualified  submission  to  God.  Whatever  he  does  is 
right ;  and  therefore  it  should  be  acquiesced  in  by  all  the  crea- 
tures of  his  power.  With  all  the  doubtings  and  struggles  of  mind 
which  he  develops,  it  is  quite  evident,  that  at  the  bottom  of  his 
heart  lay  a  deep  substratum  of  pious,  submissive,  obedient — holy 
feeling.  In  the  midst  even  of  a  paroxysm  of  despair,  when  he  is 
gazing  intently  on  some  gloomy  aspect  of  the  destiny  of  man 


Chap.  XII.  8.  Remarks.  287 

until  life  becomes  a  burden,  he  never  utters  one  disrespectful  or 
murmuring  word  toward  God.  Indeed,  he  everywhere  appeals 
to  his  rightful  sovereignty  in  order  to  hush  every  tendency  to 
complaint.  So  firm,  so  solid  was  his  persuasion  that  God  is  wise 
and  good,  that  it  is  enough,  in  his  view,  to  hush  every  complaint 
and  silence  every  murmur,  to  call  to  mind  that  this  affliction  or 
that  was  dispensed  by  his  hand.  What,  now,  shall  we  say  to  all 
this  ?  We  must  feel  ourselves  humbled  by  such  an  exhibition. 
We  often  murmur  or  are  discontented,  when  we  are  called  to 
suffering  and  sorrow,  notwithstanding  all  the  light  and  love  which 
the  gospel  has  diffused  around  us,  and  in  spite  of  all  our  cheer- 
ing hopes  as  to  the  future.  What  then  should  we  have  done,  if 
placed  in  Coheleth's  condition  —  bowed  down,  and  in  darkness, 
and  merely  catching  some  glances  of  the  twilight  that  was  begin- 
ning to  gleam  ?  The  comparison  would  operate  strongly  to  humil- 
iate us,  even  in  our  own  view.  If  those  men  of  God,  who  lived 
many  centuries  before  the  gospel  was  revealed,  could  think  and 
act  as  they  did ;  could  bow  before  God  with  the  deepest  rever- 
ence, amid  the  deepest  gloom,  and  never  utter  one  murmuring 
word,  or  indulge  one  repining  thought ;  could  believe  with  un- 
shaken faith  in  his  justice  and  goodness  and  wisdom,  when  the 
dealings  of  his  Providence  were  utterly  inexplicable  ;  then  may 
we  not  well  say :  Shame !  shame  !  on  us  for  all  our  doubts  and 
repining,  and  coldness  and  wavering !  If  they  could  feel  and  act 
as  they  did,  in  circumstances  such  as  theirs  were,  they  might 
indeed  have  had  far  less  knowledge  than  we  have  —  in  fact,  they 
had  far  less  — but  must  they  not  have  had  a  more  stable  and  ardent 
piety,  and  a  more  firm  and  enduring  faith,  than  we  can  justly 
attribute  to  ourselves  ?  "  He  that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous." 
We  do  indeed  possess  far  more  advantages  than  they  had  ;  but 
if,  with  all  these,  we  indulge  in  sin,  our  guilt  and  condemnation 
are  highly  aggravated.  Instead  of  indulging  in  self-gratulation, 
when  we  look  at  them  in  their  struggles,  we  ought  to  be  pene- 
trated with  the  deepest  humility.  Little  to  a  good  purpose  has 
he  read  the  O.  Test,  who,  like  Schleiermacher,  believes  that  it 
is  very  little  in  advance  of  the  Greek  pliilosophy,  and  who  casts 
it  aside  as  among  the  things  which  belonged  to  the  merest  child- 
hood of  mankind.  All  the  philosophy  of  Greece,  and  of  the 
whole  heathen  world,  never  made  one  such'  man  as  Coheleth ; 


288  Chap.  XII.  9—14. 

nay  more,  it  never  inspired  any  individual  with  such  views  of  the 
Godhead  as  he  exhibits.  Where  philosophy  doubts,  and  despairs, 
and  has  recourse  to  inexorable  destiny,  and  to  fate  which  is  supe- 
rior to  the  gods,  Coheleth  may  doubt  indeed  for  a  time,  and  for 
the  moment  even  despair ;  but  he  never  fails  to  find  a  refuge  at 
last  in  the  supremacy  and  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God.  He 
philosophizes  in  a  very  different  way  from  the  heathen,  and 
comes  to  very  different  results. 

Many  other  interesting  topics  stand  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject before  us  ;  but  they  belong  more  properly  to  an  Introduction 
to  the  book,  and  will  be  found  there.  We  proceed  to  the 
Epilogue  or  Conclusion  of  the  book. 

§  16.   Conclusion  of  the  hook.     Summary  of  results. 
Chap.  XII.  9—14. 

[Since  Coheleth  was  a  Ildkdm,  i.  e.  a  man  devoted  to  study  and  writing, 
or  a  ao(pug,  he  occupied  himself  with  practical  views  of  human  life.  He  has 
come  to  many  results,  which  he  commits  to  writing  as  truths  to  be  depended 
on,  vs.  9,  10.  His  words  may  help  to  stimulate  others  to  do  their  duty,  for 
he  has  brought  together  what  may  be  regarded  as  firm  and  established,  v. 
11.  What  he  has  written  is  sufficient  for  admonition  ;  to  make  man}'  books 
with  labour  and  weariness,  would  be  to  little  purpose,  v.  12.  The  conclusion 
of  all  is,  that  we  should  fear  God.  and  obey  him  ;  and  this  admonition  extends 
to  all  men,  v.  13.  Men  should  do  thus,  because  all  that  they  do,  and  say, 
and  think,  and  feel,  will,  at  some  future  period,  be  brought  into  judgment, 
V.  14. 

Doderlein,  Bertholdt,  Knobel,  and  others,  have  assailed  the  genuineness  of 
this  Epilo2:ue  ;  but.  as  Ewald  and  Hitzig  well  declare,  without  any  good 
reason.  The  language  and  style  is  the  same  as  elsewhere  in  the  book :  the 
conclusion  is  natural,  and  is  naturally  looked  for  by  the  reader.  Their  main 
reasons  are  altogether  on  a  priori  ground.  "  The  epilogue  is  not  genuine," 
they  s;iy,  ''  because  the  author  did  not  know  or  believe  what  it  contains."  — 
But  what  is  the  evidence  of  tliis  ?  Has  he  not  repeatedly  urged  elsewhere 
to  the  fear  of  God,  and  ti)  ol>edience  1  This  cannot  be  denied.  Has  he  not 
repeatedly  brought  to  view,  the  truth,  that  there  is  a  time  appointed  for  the 
judgment  of  what  men  do  ?  He  who  examines  3:17.  8  :  11,  12.  11:  9,  with 
care,  and  then  compares  with  these  passages  the  many  which  speak  in  con- 
currence with  them,  will  be  slow  to  say  that  there  is  anything  specially  new 
in  V.  14  here.  '"But  the  particularity  of  the  assertion,  viz.  that  evcrij  icork 
and  every  secret  thin()  shall  be  brought  into  judgment,  makes  it  certain,"  says 
Knobel,  "  that  ii  future  jiid>j^ment  is  meant,  and  of  this  Coheleth  knew  nothing, 
and  therefore  could  not  have  written  the  passage."  But  the  assumption  that 
he  knew  nothing  of  all  this,  is  without  proof,  and,,  as  we  have  seen,  without 


Chap.  XIL  9.  289 

any  good  foundation.  If  we  concede  all  that  Knobel  asserts  in  his  premises. 
we  might  follow  him  in  his  conclusion.  I  say  mi(jht  follow,  not  vinst ;  for 
even  if  the  other  parts  of  the  book  develope  nothing  of  such  a  knowledge,  this 
would  not  decide  that  there  can  be  no  new  truth  in  the  epilogue.  At  all 
events,  the  objections  to  the  genuineness  rest  on  grounds  which  are  too 
slender  to  support  them  ;  and  the  great  body  of  critics  have  failed  to  concede 
that  they  have  any  force.  This  question  may  be  regarded,  on  the  whole,  as 
a  settled  one,  and  one  that  will  soon  cease  to  be  seriously  debated  any 
more.] 

(9)  And  further  [I  say],  that  Coheleth  was  a  wise  man;  moreover,  he 
taught  the  people  knowledge,  and  he  weighed  and  searched  out  —  he  set  in 
order  many  parables. 

^n'll ,  and  further^  with  an  implication  of  I'^k,  I  say.  This  is 
indicated  by  the  d  ==  'rrx,  that,  which  follows.  So:  And 
further  [I  say],  that  etc.  So  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  others ;  and 
rightly.  —  Coheleth  was  a  wise  man,  Drn ,  not  the  wise  man,  but 
one  belonging  to  that  class,  a  Hakim,  as  such  an  one  is  still  called 
in  Arabia.  It  was  the  business  of  such  to  make  investigations. 
He  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person  here  ;  as  often  else- 
where.—  "lYJ  ,  further,  introducing  a  clause  which  stands  as  coor- 
dinate with  was  a  wise  man,  giving  an  account  of  what  such  a 
man's  employment  was.  —  He  taught  the  people  knowledge,  two 
Accusatives  after  a  verb  of  teaching,  viz.  the  one  describes  those 
who  were  taught,  the  other  the  thing  that  was  taught.  —  Weighed 
and  sought  out,  he  weighed  d'^bd'^  already  known,  and  sought  out 
new  ones.  The  Ace.  is  not  supplied  here,  viz.  that  which  he 
weighed  and  sought  out ;  but  the  next  clause  supplies  it,  which 
is  subordinate  to  the  present  one.  It  is  of  course  c^b^^^a  .  —  The 
verb  'li^n  means  to  arrange,  to  set  right  or  in  order.  It  has  no  1. 
before  it,  which  shows  that  it  is  subordinate  and  epexegetical ; 
see  the  like  in  1  K.  13:  18.  Gen.  48 :  14.  Jer.  7 :  26,  al.  The 
seeking  out  and  weighiyig  are  first  in  time ;  then  'putting  the  result 
in  order  is  the  next  subsequent  process.  For  this  sense  of  ',;^n , 
see  also  1:  15.  7:13.  —  ^'^^'^'O ,  similitudes,  resemblances,  a  kind  of 
composition  in  which  comparison  by  reason  of  resemblances  or 
of  contrast  frequently  takes  place.  Hence  parables,  in  the  sense 
of  the  Greek  naQa^oXal,  which  denotes  that  things  are  brought 
together  and  compared.  Whether  similitude  or  contrast  be  the 
result,  both  are  called  parables.  So  the  book  of  Proverbs,  D'^bdp  , 
where  this  species  of  composition  so  much  abounds.  But  our 
25 


290  Chap.  XII.  10,  11., 

word  proverb  is  not  coextensive  with  the  meaning  of  t"^^^^'^  j 
which  the  Hebrews  applied  to  any  species  of  composition  where 
comparisons  or  similitudes  abound.  So  the  book  before  us  is 
filled  with  cases  of  contrast  and  of  resemblance.  That  Coheleth 
set  these  in  order,  was  a  subordinate  work  ;  and  so  our  text  makes 
it,  when  the  grammatical  construction  is  well  understood.  It  is 
worthy  of  note,  that  all  the  three  verbs  are  here  in  Piel,  in  order 
to  denote  continued  and  repeated  effort. 

(10)  Coheleth  sought  to  find  agreeable  words,  and  correctly  to  write  down 
words  of  truth. 

y'Sn ,  of  arjreeahleness,  of  'pleasantness.     Altogether  appropriate  ; 
for  a  book  like  Coheleth's  needs  pains-taking  with  the  diction,  in 

order  to  render  it  spirited  and  attractive n^n^ ,  pointed  as  a 

Part.  pass,  here,  but  erroneously.  It  should  plainly  be  inins  Inf. 
abs.,  for  it  is,  as  it  were,  in  apposition  with  the  preceding  iiis^b , 
Inf.  const.  This  is  nothing  strange.  See  in  1  Sam.  22  :  13.  25  : 
26,  33,  comp.  31.  Ex.  32:  6,  al.,  examples  of  the  same  nature, 
where  the  Inf.  abs.  continues  the  discourse  after  the  Inf  const.  — 
niT'i ,  lit.  correctness,  but  it  is  adverbial  Ace.  of  manner  z=.  cor- 
rectly. The  second  clause  is  rather  coordinate  with  the  first, 
than  subordinate.  The  writer  does  not  mean  merely,  that  he 
first  sought  for  proper  words,  and  then  proceeded  to  write  the 
same  down,  but  he  means  to  convey  the  additional  idea,  that  he 
wrote  words  of  truth,  as  well  as  acceptable  words. 

(11)  The  words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads,  and  as  nails  driven  in  are  those 
who  make  collections,  which  are  communicated  by  one  shepherd. 

'jiS'Ti,  (read  dor-bdn,  although  Dagh.  lene  is  not  inserted 
in  the  n,  as  we  might  expect),  is  the  ground-form  of  risb'i^  . 
But  we  have  other  examples  of  the  like  kind ;  e.  g.  I^'^p  in 
Ezek.  40:  43,  and  'i^35<  in  Esth.  8:  6.  The  Methegh  after '\j 
in  two  of  these  three  cases,  would  seem  to  indicate  a  long  a 
sound  for  Qaraets  ;  but  etymology  is  against  it  in  these  forms, 
(they  being  Pual  derivates,  and  so  with  the  first  vowel  short), 
and  Methegh  is  not  put  here  for  the  sake  of  the  (  ),  but  in 
accordance  with  a  principle  which  frequently  admits  it  on  a 
pemdt  syllable  when  it  is  short  and  closed,  §  1 6.  2.  n.  c.  In  the 
plural  form  in  our  text,  the  (J  supplies  the  place  of  the  Methegh 


Chap.  XIL  11.  291 

in  the  ground-form.  —  The  meaning  of  the  word  is  goad,  but  not 
exckisively  ox-goad,  as  Ges.  (Lex.)  seems  to  imply.  The  goad 
may,  indeed,  be  used  for  oxen,  but  so  it  may  also  for  any  other 
beast  that  needs  to  be  urged  on.  Of  course  the  sense  \s>  figurative 
here.  Stimulant  is  the  meaning,  or  that  which  excites,  or  which 
pricks  so  as  to  make  a  vivid  impression.  The  reference  here  is, 
not  to  all  the  words  which  the  wise  may  utter,  but  to  those  which 
have  a  sententious  form,  to  the  cV'V'r  of  v.  9,  adapted  to  seize  the 
attention  and  impress  the  memory  ;  in  a  word,  the  reference  is  to 
such  sayings  and  precepts  as  this  book  contains.  —  r:1"T:b^  is 
formed  from  'r^o ,  to  bristle,  but  it  is  here  written  with  ♦S'm  (b=t:), 
7iails  or  spikes.  The  image  is  essentially  of  the  like  nature  with 
that  of  goads  ;  i.  e.  both  are  sharp-pointed  instruments,  and  there- 
fore make  a  lively  impression.  But  in  this  second  case,  there  is 
another  circumstance  added,  viz.  the  nails  are  driven  in,  as  it  were 
fast  'planted,  they  are  xi'"JT^': ,  i.  e.  made  fast  and  sure.  This 
either  marks  the  impression  as  both  deep  and  abiding,  or  (so  Hitz.) 
designates  the  stable  and  permanent  nature  of  the  writings  (v.  10) 
in  question.  But  what  is  it  which  is  like  to  the  nails  thus  driven  in  ? 
The  answer  is,  mBpi<  "^^^S,  i.  e.  the  collections  of  the  D'^^rn.  For 
*ib"S,  see  jSrstthe  use  of  Isrs  in  Lex.,  and  comp.  Ecc.  10  :  11,  20, 
(comp.  7  :  12.  8  :  8).  It  is  manifest,  from  a  comparison  of  all  the 
peculiar  uses  of  b:>'a ,  that  the  idea  of  possessor,  (which  of  course 
follows  in  the  train  of  lord,  master,  etc.),  enters  into  all  the  cases 
where  it  occurs  in  the  const,  state.  Thus  I'^rn  ^brs  ,  lit.  possessors 
of  the  city,  means  its  inhabitants,  Judg.  9  :  51;  el's;!)  hv'2,poss.  of 
wings,  i.  e.  wiiiged,  Ecc.  10 :  20  ;  Abraham  and  his  neighbours 
were  ni'nz  ^bra ,  poss.  of  a  covenant,  i.  e.  leagued  together.  Gen. 
14:13;  ;rE3  hv"^,  poss.  of  desire,  i.e.  greedy.  Pro  v.  23  :  2  ; 
even  in  d^i^s'ns  Vjji  ,  the  name  of  a  town  (2  Sam.  5  :  20),  the  mean- 
ing of  br2  is  still  retained,  viz.  possessor  of  breaches,  i.  e.  a  town 
on  which  breaches  have  been  made.  In  this  last  case  we  see  it 
applied  to  things,  as  well  as  to  persons  ;  the  latter,  however,  is 
the  most  common  usage.  So  in  Is.  41:  15,  ni'^£'^5  b:'3,  poss.  of 
edges,  i.  e.  sharp,  is  applied  to  a  new  threshing  drag.  Any  person 
or  thing,  having  any  quality,  or  marked  by  any  attribute  or  pecu- 
liarity, is  (or  may  be)  named  hvii  in  respect  to  that  quality,  etc. 
This  seems  to  render  plain  the  meaning  of  r"istpx  "^^".^ .  The 
word  n'*,Sp^^  (plur.  of  nssx)  is  a  Pilel  formation  from  ?]DX,  and 


292  Chap.  XII.  11. 

means  simply  collections,  collectanea.  Hitzig  has  rendered  the  two 
connected  words  merely  by  Gesammelten,  i.  e.  collectanea.  But 
then  what  becomes  of  the  modification  made  by  '^\'^^  ?  Clearly 
persons  are  here  concerned ;  for  what  says  the  previous  parallel 
clause  ?  It  says,  that  the  words  of  the  wise  (d'^TSSn  )  are  like  goads. 
A  class  of  perso7is,  who  utter  the  words  in  question,  are  hereby^ 
designated.  So  in  the  next  clause  (now  before  us),  the  nietpx  "'b^S 
designates  such  of  the  wise  men  as  made  collectanea  of  wise  and 
prudential  sayings.  The  first  cl^ss  utter  these ;  the  second  collect 
writings  (-'irs  in  v.  10),  which  contain  them.  Both  are  goads 
and  nails,  to  the  careless  and  indifferent.  The  first  quicken  and 
stimulate  by  their  addresses  ;  the  second  do  the  same  thing,  but 
also  fasten  the  impressions  made  more  lastingly,  because  they 
are  not  only  nails,  but  nails  driven  in,  firmly  planted  or  fixed, 
since,  in  consequence  of  the  maxims  being  reduced  to  writing, 
they  take  an  enduring  or  permanent  form.  It  seems  plain,  then, 
that  the  nature  of  the  parallelism  here  demands  persons  as  agents 
in  both  its  parts.  The  explanation  now  given  meets  that  demand. 
If,  with  some  critics  of  note,  we  translate  here  :  masters  of  assem- 
blies, i.  e.  of  literary  consessus,  then  we  must  incur  the  difficulty, 
not  to  say  absurdity,  of  these  masters'  being  given  hy  one  shepherd. 
It  is  things  which  this  nsj'"i  shepherd,  i.  e.  teacher,  gives,  and  not 
persons. 

They  are  given  hy  one  shepherd.  What  are  given  ?  Clearly,  the 
things  just  mentioned.  So  plainly  is  this  the  case,  that  even  ^ttx 
before  ^srni  is  dispensed  with  as  unnecessary.  Nor  is  there  any 
serious  difficulty  here.  The  words  of  the  wise  are  given,  and  the 
collectanea  of  one  class  of  them,  i.  e.  maxims  and  monitions  already 
reduced  to  writing  and  collected  by  them,  are  both  given  by 
Coheleth.  For  what  says  he,  in  the  context  ?  He  says  that '  he 
sought  out,  and  weighed,  and  arranged  tib'^TS ,  and  that  he  re- 
duced to  writing  what  he  found  to  be  true.'  He  is  the  man,  then, 
the  n3;H ,  whose  object  it  is  to  feed  others  with  knowledge.  As  to 
the  first  two  clauses  of  v.  11,  where  the  plural  number  is  used,  a 
mere  general  fact  or  truth  is  here  stated.  The  writer  says,  that 
the  wise  (the  Hakams)  speak  words  that  are  as  goads,  and  that 
their  associates,  who  collect  writings  of  this  sort,  are  as  nails. 
He  takes  it  for  granted  that  this  will  be  conceded,  in  the  general 
form  in  which  he  states  it.     If  so,  then  he,  who  has  sought  out, 


Chap.  XII.  11.  293 

and  weighed,  and  duly  arranged,  all  of  these  matters,  and  now 
brings  them  forward,  is  entitled  to  a  hearing.  Nay,  he  boldly 
intimates,  in  the  next  verse,  that  his  book  contains  the  essence  of 
all,  and  moreover  that  it  comprises  all  which  is  needed.  The 
whole  of  vs.  9 — 1 2  is  one  consistent  and  connected  view  of  what 
he  had  done,  and  of  the  credit  which  he  thinks  is  due  to  it. 

We  can  now  easily  dispose  of  the  last  clause.    sirriD  is  plur. 
Perf.  of  Niph. ;  its  Nom.  is  "ndx  implied ;  and  nrx  refers  of  course 
to  the  words  and  writings  just  mentioned.     Coheleth  has  searched 
thoroughly,  and  written  down  whatever  he  judged  to  be  true, 
and  important  to  his  purpose.     And  now,  in  his  book,  are  given 
to  the  w^orld  the  results  of  his  labours.  —  ^nx  fc^-q ,  hy  one  shep- 
herd.   This  word  Hitzig  points  n^n^  and  renders  it  pasture,  that 
is,  as  he  avers,  the  writer  has  collected  all  the  scattered  particu- 
lars, and  thrown  them  into  one  pasture,  where  his  readers  may 
feed.     But   ^sn?   (as  plur.  Niph.)   said  of  the  writer  would  be 
abnormal ;  for  the  sing,  active  Kal,  -(in: ,  would  in  such  a  case  be 
required.     In   the  passive,  then,  the  verb  must  be  made.     He 
renders  thus  :   ivhich  are  presented  as  a  united  pasture ;  which  at 
least  wears  the  air  of  something  far-fetched  and  outre.     It  has  no 
like,  in  all  the  Scriptures.     His  objection  to  rendering  nnx  nr'i^ , 
hy  07ie  shepherd  is,  that  -,p  does  nowhere  else  stand  before  the 
efficient  cause,  when  connected  with  the  passive.     But  in  this  he 
is  mistaken  ;  see  Gen.  9:11.  Ps.  76  :  7  ;  and  iJistrumentalities  are 
not  unfrequently  preceded  by  "(q  {-c)  ,  as  in  Is.  28  :  7.    Ps.  28  :  7. 
Ezek.  28  :  18,  al.    There  is  no  difference  between  these  two  classes 
of  cases,  in  regard  to  the  principle  concerned  in  the  grammatical 
constijuction.     Then  again,  he  suggests  that  "  the  one  (^nx)  makes 
an  insuperable  difficulty  here.     Why  one  shepherd  ?     And  what 
difference  is  there,  whether  the  gift  is  from  one,  or  from  manyV 
Yet  to  my  mind  this  difficulty  does  not  seem  weighty.     Of  whom 
had  the  writer  just  been  speaking  ?    Of  wise  men,  and  of  the 
possessors  of  collectanea.     These  are  many,  and  what  they  have 
given^  lies  in  many  scattered  portions.     Coheleth  has  made  a 
selectio  1  and  a  summary  from  them,  and  instead  of  being  obliged 
to  consult  the  many  n^:22n  and  mSDNt  -^isJs  ,  learners  find  in  one 
teacher  all  that  they  need.     The  o^ie  n^nis  plainly  in  contrast 
with  the  many  c-^rn .     The  next  verse  fully  confirms  this  view  of 
the  subject.  —  But  Avhy  does  the  writer  call  himself  n5?n  ?     This 
25* 


294  Chap.  XII.  12. 

word  literally  means  feeder,  e.  g.  of  cattle,  sheep,  etc.  Tropically 
it  is  very  significant,  and  designates  rector,  curator,  governor, 
king,  prince,  (like  Homer's  TioifJij'p  Xacov)  ;  and  in  Prov.  10  :  21, 
the  verb  !i:-n  means  feedi?ig  with  knowledge.  Of  course  ris?'",  (the 
Part.)  tropically  designates  a  teacher,  an  instructer.  He  tells  us 
expressly  (v.  9),  that  he  taught  the  people  hioiiiedge ;  and  also 
that  he  searched  out  and  arranged  and  wrote  down  words  of 
truth,  such  as  the  wise  utter,  vs.  9, 10.  He,  then,  is  the  nrn .  He 
feeds  the  flock  with  knowledge.  In  this  view  of  the  subject,  all 
the  difficulties  seem  to  vanish. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  or  expedient  to  recount  and  refute 
the  almost  endless  varieties  of  opinion,  that  have  been  given 
concerning  this  hitherto  difficult  verse.  It  would  be  time  spent 
to  little  purpose.  Where  conjecture  takes  the  place  of  grammat- 
ical investigation,  and  random  guessing  for  sober  exegetical  ex- 
amination, opinions  may  be  endless  and  discrepant :  but  the 
history  of  them  is  not  always  worth  preserving.  The  whole 
passage  is  undoubtedly  unique  in  its  style  and  tenor,  and  analo- 
gies cannot  well  be  summoned  to  our  aid.  Hence  the  many  dis- 
crepant and  erroneous  opinions  in  regard  to  the  verse.  But  I 
am  not  disposed  to  be  over  confident,  in  such  a  case,  in  my  own 
opinion.  I  have  aimed  to  get  out  the  meaning  by  a  simple  gram- 
matical and  philological  process.  If  I  have  not  succeeded,  I  hope 
that  others  will  be  more  fortunate.  Failure  here,  where  so  many 
have  failed,  is  scarcely  to  be  put  to  the  account  of  disgrace. 

(12)  And  further:  by  these,  my  son,  be  thou  admonished  ;  to  make  books 
abundant  —  without  end.  and  much  eagerness  of  study,  are  a  wearijiess  of 
the  flesh. 

To  translate,  with  Herzfeld  :  To  make  many  hools  would  admit 
no  end;  or  with  Knobel  and  Ewald:  admits  no  end  —  has  no  end, 
gives  an  irrelative  and  incongruous  sense ;  or  at  least,  one  that 
cannot  be  true  without  much  allowance  for  hyperbole.  "I'l^  "px 
seems  to  be  added  merely  for  the  sake  of  intensity  to  J^Si^iln. 
Hitz.  to  malce  endlessly  many  hooks;  and  this,  no  doubt,  gives 
substantially  the  true  idea:  71^  ■p^^  here  =  ^^-o,  which  last,  by 
the  way,  is  never  employed  in  this  book.  Doubtless  there  is 
hyperbole  in  the  expression,  even  thus  considered ;  but  still,  only 
such  as  is  very  common  in  animated  discourse.     To  make  very 


Chap.  XIL  13.  295 

many  books  gives  the  real  meaning ;  while  the  form  of  expression 
in  Heb.  is  thus :  To  make  books,  many,  icithout  end.  The  last 
two  words  are  merely  a  circumstantial  addition,  qualifying  what 
was  before  said.  Thus  far  we  have  only  one  subject  or  Norn,  of 
the  sentence.  But  a  second  subject  follows:  and  much  eager- 
ness of  study.  For  '^Th ,  found  in  Hebrew  only  here,  see  Lex. 
But  the  word  is  found  in  Arabic,  and  corresponds  there  with  the 
meaning  given  in  the  version.  Both  of  these  subjects  are  now 
followed  by  the  predicate  :  viz.  is  a  weariness  ofthejlesh  or  body. 
Much  study  would  be  requisite  to  make  very  many  books,  at 
least  if  they  were  worth  reading.  And  such  books  as  are  worth 
it,  Coheleth  has  in  view,  for  they  are  such  as  are  goads  and  nail$ 
—  not  trecentos  versus  in  hora,  stans  pede  in  uno.  V.  9  shows, 
that  he  had  made  strenuous  exertion  to  write  one  book.  The 
character  of  this,  as  it  stood  in  his  view,  we  have  yet  to  consider. 

For  the  rest,  my  son,  be  thou  admonished,  or  get  for  thyself  ad" 
monition,  from  them  or  by  them,  viz.  froin  the  things  that  are  com- 
municated by  the  one  shepherd,  ?^^i^'3  refers  to  those  things, 
and  we  may  render  -q  either /ro/?i  or  by,  as  the  particle  is  capable 
of  either  sense,  and  either  will  fit  the  passage.  —  "^aa,  my  son,  is 
the  familiar  address  of  a  teacher  to  his  pupil;  Prov.  1:  8,  10,  15. 
2:1.  3:1,  11,  21.  4:  1,  10,  20.  5:  1,  20,  etc.  —  n  win  maybe 
interpreted  either  by  the  simple  passive,  or  the  reflexive,  as 
Niph.  is  often  employed  in  the  latter  sense ;  and  in  accordance 
with  this  I  have  translated  above. 

Sentiment :  '  Reader,  be  dihgent  to  learn,  from  the  things  that 
I  have  communicated,  all  needful  admonition.  Many  books  are 
unnecessary  for  such  a  purpose,  and  the  labour  which  they 
would  cost  is  severe,  and  would  now  be  little  more  than  useless.' 

(13)  The  conclusion  of  tlie  wliolc  matter  let  us  hear:  Fear  God,  ami  keep 
Ids  commandments  ;  yea,  this  every  man  [should  do]. 

riiD  is  not  summary,  sum,  nor  exenfnal  residt  here.  It  means 
the  concluding  part  of  the  whole  discussion,  and  so  that  which 
the  wrier  has  most  of  all  at  heart.  "Finis  coronat  opus." — 
The  whole  matter,  where  Vin  has  the  article,  but  -in^ ,  in  apposi- 
tion, is  without  it.  V's  is  not  an  adjective,  but  a  noun  denoting 
the  whole,  the  totality.  Lit.  a  conclusion  of  the  matter,  of  the  whole 
[of  the  matter].      The  ai'ticle,  in  this  case,  where  there  is  a 


296  Chap.  XII.  14. 

speciality  of  emphasis  on  the  second  word,  is  designedly  added  ; 
see  §  109.  2.  a.  The  accents  give  the  following  sense  :  Conclu- 
sion of  the  whole;  all  is  heard ;  Fear  God,  etc.  The  punctators 
were  misled,  by  not  comprehending  the  true  design  of  the  article 
in  bisn  .  —  Yea,  this  shoidd  every  man  \do'\.  With  Hitzig,  I  have 
rendered  ^^  as  an  intensive  here,  as  it  often  is  in  this  book,  and 
in  the  contemporary  (?)  book  of  Job,  e.  g.  11:  6.  30:  11.  31:  18, 
23.  39:  19.  But  it  may  be  causal,  for,  i.  q.  fear  —  keep,  etc., 
because  it  is  every  man's  duty  to  do  so.  Our  translation  runs 
thus  :  The  whole  of  man,  and  is  against  the  Heb.  idiom,  and 
without  any  tangible  sense,  for  D'lX-bs  cannot  mean  the  whole 
of  man,  but  every  man.  All  that  is  lacking  here  is  the  verb,  which, 
however,  the  context  supplies,  viz.  ^ai^^ ;  and  then  the  clauses 
run  thus :  Keep  his  commandments ;  yea,  for  this  every  man 
[should  keep].  If  filled  out  entirely  it  would  run  thus  :  For  this 
[last  commandment]  every  man  [should  keep].  This  (fit)  refers 
to  the  commandment,  or  to  each  commandment,  just  given.  In 
other  words  : '  When  I  command  you  to  keep  the  commandments 
of  God,  obey  this  my  command.'  As  to  supplying  a  verb  in  such 
obvious  cases,  there  are  examples  enough;  see  in  2:  12,  comp. 
Deut.  20 :  19.  Such  ellipses  are  nothing  strange,  where  the 
verb  is  so  easily  supplied. 

(14)  For  every  work  will  God  bring  into  the  judgment  concerning  every 
secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good  or  whether  it  be  evil. 

With  every  secret  thing  (so  our  version),  the  Hebrew  does  not  say. 
The  word  ^>^  does  not  mean  m^A.  The  simple  fact  is,  that  iHl  'bv 
defines  and  qualifies  the  word  judgment,  without  making  (as  our 
version  does)  every  work  one  thing,  and  every  secret  thing  another. 
DQui'o  should,  plainly,  be  written  with  the  article,  1251^533,  as  it  is 
in  11:  9.  I  have  followed  the  accents,  in  my  pointing  of  the  first 
clause.  So  we  have,  by  this  well-authorized  change  of  the  vowels, 
the  judgment,  viz.  the  one  which  God  has  appointed,  11:  9.  3:  17. 
But  what  kind  of  judgment  will  that  be,  or  to  what  extent  will 
it  go?  It  will  extend  oi^er  (^?),  or  unto,  even  every  concealed 
thing,  i.  e.  concealed  from  men ;  it  will  take  cognizance  of 
all  actions  whether  good  or  evil.  The  word  ::5'l3^  is  mentally 
repeated  or  implied,  before  "b'J  —  [the  judgment]  concerning  or 
having  respect  to,  every  concealed  thing,  etc. 


Chap.  XII.  14.  297 

No  wonder  that  Knobel  here  finds  a  future  judgment.  "If," 
says  he,  "  one  considers  this  passage  without  prejudice,  he  must 
acknowledge  the  idea  of  a  formal  judgment,  occurring,  as  men 
suppose,  after  death."  He  then  states  two  reasons  for  this  con- 
clusion ;  (1)  "Evenj  work  is  brought  into  judgment.  (2)  The 
expression,  every  secret  thing,  is  always  employed  with  reference 
to  a  judgment  after  death  ; "  for  which  he  refers  to  Rom.  2:16. 
1  Cor.  4 :  5.  1  Tim.  5  :  24,  25.  Other  passages  might  be  added. 
He  considers  this  so  plain  and  certain  as  a  result  of  the  language, 
that  he  denies  the  genuineness  of  the  verse,  because,  as  he  says, 
Coheleth  had  no  knowledge  of  such  a  judgment,  or  belief  in  it. 
How  much  there  is  of  sound  argument  in  this  last  conclusion, 
has  already  been  examined,  in  the  remarks  above  made  on  the 
closing  part  of  the  book.  That  his  philological  conclusions 
are  sound,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  prove.  The  writer  plainly 
believes  in  a  future  judgment.  Hitzig  (on  11:  9)  endeavours  to 
show,  that  all  the  judgment  which  is  spoken  of  there,  is  the  evils 
which  attend  old  age,  or  which  come  upon  it.  He  tacitly  ex- 
tends this  same  view  to  the  verse  now  before  us  ;  but  he  is  silent 
in  regard  to  the  matter,  in  his  commentary  upon  it.  I  have  (in 
remarks  on  11:  9)  already  examined  his  views,  and  found  good 
reason,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  differ  from  them. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION. 

§  1.  General  nature  of  the  book 7 

§  2.  Special  design  and  method  of  the  book 10 

§  3.  Unity  of  the  book 52 

§  4.  Diction  of  the  book 55 

§  5.  Who  was  the  author  ? 67 

§  6.  Credit  and  general  history  of  the  book 79 

§  7.  Ancient  Versions  of  Coheleth 85 

[Septuagint,  p.  85.  —  Vulgate,  p.  89.— Syriac,  p.  91.  —  Targum,  p.  92.] 

§  8.  Modern  Versions 100 

§  9.   Commentators 101 


COMMENTARY. 

§  1.  Title  and  theme  of  the  book,  Chap.  1. 1—11 105 

§  2.  EiForts  to  obtain  happiness  by  the  acquisition  of  wisdom, 

1. 12—18 118 

§  3.  Efforts  to  obtain  happiness  by  the  pursuit  of  pleasure,  11. 1—1 1.123 
§  4.  Limited  advantages  of  wisdom  ;  it  exempts  not  from  the 

common  lot  of  suffering  and  sorrow,  11.  12 — 26 131 

§  5.  All  depends  on  Providence.    Man  cannot  change  the  course 

of  things,  m.  1—15 143 

§  6.  Objections  against  the  idea,  that  God  has  made  everything 

goodly.  III.  16—22 151 

§  7.   Obstacles  to  enjoyment ;  toil  and  frustrated  hopes  of  those 

who  seek  to  be  rich  and  powerful,  IV.  1 — 16 163 

§  8.  How  one  should  demean  himself  in  present  circumstances, 

ly.  17— V.  1—6 • 176 

§  9.  Various  supplementary  reflections,  V.  7 — 19 183 


300  CONTENTS. 

§  10.  Disappointments  frequent,  both  of  the  wise  and  foolish  ;  pro- 
vidential arrangements  cannot  be  controlled,  VI.  1 — 12 .  ...  194 

§11.  Alleviations  of  evil;  caution  as  to  one's  behaviour  toward 
rulers ;  many  miseries  come  from  our  own  perversion, 
Vn.  1—29 205 

§  1 2.  Men  sin  from  a  variety  of  causes ;  punishment  will  come, 

sooner  or  later,  VIII.  1—1 7 229 

§  13.  Suffering  is  the  common  lot ;  we  should  look  at  the  brighter 

side  of  things,  IX.  1—10 243 

§  14.  Wisdom  sometimes  fails  to  profit ;  folly  vdW  be  duly  re- 
warded, IX.  11— X.  20 253 

§  15.  Counsel  in  regard  to  unavoidable  evils ;  specially  old  age 

and  death,  XI.  1— XII.  8 269 

§  16.  Conclusion  of  the  book ;  summary  of  results,  XII.  9 — 14 ....  288 

EXCURSUS. 

(1)  On  the  empty  pursuit  of  knowledge 140 

(2)  Is  future  retribution  taught  in  Coheleth  ? 153 

(3)  Why  does  Coheleth  say  no  more  about  a  future  state  ? 202 

(4)  Discursiveness  of  Coheleth  in  some  cases 205 

(5)  His  peculiar  views  of  women 226 

(6)  Remarks  on  Coheleth's  method  of  argument  and  state  of  feeling.  286 


DATE  DUE 

r-    Atitfi 

m'' 

5  Wi 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

BS1475.S932       ^    ,    .     , 
A  commentary  on  Ecclesiastes. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  00050  2072 


